Printable View
Quote:
The first is what is known as the 'Problem of Evil'
Much of the evil in the world occurs only because we choose to create it. The greatest evils in the world are those inflicted by man upon man. In making the world, God faced a choice: he could create free humans , or he could create some kind of robots , without the ability to make choices of their own with no free will. So there we are.
By all means do.Quote:
If you really want me to present it in full
Moreover in the cases of let’s say disasters and other terrible events not caused by men, you may ask, why do these exists? The answer is simple: the existence of evil is a necessary condition for the existence of certain kinds of good. For example: in the case of bravery compassion, they may only exist if evil exists.
‘’God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist.’’
Saint Augustine
Thank you for the change in your attitude to one that is more appropriate to the purpose of this forum.
The obvious response to that is simply to ask why God faced a choice. As an omnipotent being why could He simply not have created a universe in which free will exists but evil does not? The only response, seemingly, is to demonstrate that the relationship between free will and the existence of evil is logical rather than merely contingent, and to do that you would need to start by establishing that free will exists in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Justufy
This all all very old and very tired ground, of course, and there seems little point in re-hashing it all. For me, though, the clincher on the subject is the evidential, as opposed to logical problem of evil. Basically that boils down to the suggestion that, even if the argument that evil must exist in order that good must exist is accepted, the amount of suffering endured is grossly disproportionate to that actually needed for that purpose. In other words, a truly omni-benevolent God could have reduced suffering without any undesirable consequences. As this did not happen, there is no reason to think such a God exists.
Quote:
As an omnipotent being why could He simply not have created a universe in which free will exists but evil does not? The only response, seemingly, is to demonstrate that the relationship between free will and the existence of evil is logical rather than merely contingent, and to do that you would need to start by establishing that free will exists in the first place.
Actually Platinga has done a pretty good job in his free will defense, I will lay the main lines out for you, Plantinga puts forth a defense, offering a new proposition that is intended to demonstrate that it is logically possible for an omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God to create a world that contains evil.
‘’A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.’’-Alvin Platinga
The argument goes as follows:
1. There are possible worlds that even an omnipotent being can not actualize.
2. A world with morally free creatures producing only moral good is such a world.
source: wikipedia, I like wikipedia it is well vulgarized.
Greetings and peace be with you Trumble,
We call this place heaven, but it seems we have to mess up big time on Earth, hopefully we may learn something from our short life here. If someone is killed unjustly in war; God can raise them back to life and put all things right.Quote:
The obvious response to that is simply to ask why God faced a choice. As an omnipotent being why could He simply not have created a universe in which free will exists but evil does not?
If there is no God, then all njustice dies with each person, and nothing gets put right.
In the spirit of searching for a just and merciful God.
Eric
I hope this isn't going to mean I'm struck from your Christmas card list, but no I can't acknowledge that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supreme
To paraphrase Dawkins (which might get me struck from the list), the existence of God is as much a scientific proposition as anything else; if he existed and wanted to make himself known he could do that and give us observable evidence in the process. It's either true or false.
Quran contains many eveidence, you need to have logic sense to understand it.
See also: the Bible.Quote:
if he existed and wanted to make himself known he could do that and give us observable evidence in the process.
If we're having our faith tested while in this life, wouldn't popping out to say 'here I am!' kind of defeat the purpose? All the evidence is already here, whether or not you want to accept it is of course up to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaffaCake
And this is the reason why my answer toQuote:
Originally Posted by Supreme
"Why don't you believe in God, Jaffacake?"
was
"Same reason that you don't believe I have a pet dragon."
I can tell you that if I like, but it's not evidence.
If God doesn't exist, wouldn't spending your whole life in submission to him be terribly pointless?Quote:
Originally Posted by I<3Bush
As for evidence, see above.
One doesn't need to see the bee to know where the honey came from.. I find the request to see God as absurd as a teacher handing out his students the answer to the test in advance.. to deny God is fine and well... holding on to a universal negative isn't.. if you are going to hold such a position and expect others to subscribe to it, in the very least give the common courtesy to account for everything in existence in a concise logical fashion.
the term 'evidence' is used very loosely here, obviously the standards get lower as brains and morality become diminutive.
2:210 Will they wait until God comes to them in canopies of clouds, with angels (in His train) and the question is (thus) settled?
______________________
6:68 When thou seest men engaged in vain discourse about Our Signs, turn away from them unless they turn to a different theme. If Satan ever makes thee forget, then after recollection, sit not thou in the company of those who do wrong.
Muslims on board should really take heed of this verse before engaging in puerile discussions with atheists!
:wa:
What further messages would you like God to send? Subliminal religious sermons during your daily viewing of Eastenders? A host of angels prancing up and down your garden perhaps? Maybe you'd like Jesus to appear on some toast, and then you'll believe. The point is, God sent down the prophets and then Jesus came, and then the other religions that claim to have prophets and gurus and the like sent by God. What further evidence are you looking for? If these religious men who conducted miracles and spoke wisdom only God could have produced haven't convinced you, what will? ( I know, that sounds cheesy).Quote:
I can tell you that if I like, but it's not evidence.
Thus, this would be a perfect oppurtunity to reflect on the truths Jesus spoke:
(Mark 4:11-12)Quote:
11He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12so that,
" 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Even if God's existence is an evidence ,one can truly only know God in faith allone. What we cannot grasp by reason we grasp by faith.
:wa:
if no logic, evidence or forethought went into the matter then it wouldn't make a difference if you were a Muslim or a Zoroastrian or anything else in between. I am Muslim because I have deliberated, and given it a great deal of study and reflection. We don't 'grasp God' and that certainly isn't the end goal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Justufy
all the best!
But now I want to get back to the Big Bang, here we go:
1.) Everything which begins to exist requires a cause.
2.) The universe began to exist.
3.) Therefore, the universe requires a cause.”
Now let us talk about causal chains:
1.An actual infinite cannot exist
2.A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite
3.Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.
from the Evidence from the expanding galaxies in the universe
and from the Evidence from the laws of thermodynamics we know that that the universe is not infinite in the past, but had a finite beginning which necessitates a cause for its existence.
If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:God exists. Voila!:statisfie
for these who might suggest that this first cause need not be God, Read this first, as it deals with the definition of God.
Quote:
Here the atheist claims that, even if all of the premises of the Cosmological Argument are true, there is no reason to suppose that God is the only reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe. I will argue that the nature of the First Cause in this instance requires exactly the same entity as outlined by my minimalist definition of God. For convenience, I will list the three major points of my minimalist definition of God here, and I will then demonstrate that the First Cause in question requires such characteristics.
1.) An entity that is above and beyond the laws of the universe, and not subject to the laws of the universe.
2.) An eternally existing entity.
3.) An entity with the ability to make decisions.
We’ll look at each of these in turn.
1.) An entity that is above and beyond the laws of the universe, and not subject to the laws of the universe.
Since the universe contains physical laws, the entity that created the universe would have to be separate from these laws. Therefore, the entity would be operating in a different realm, and would not be subject to the laws of the universe it created. The universe could not be created by its own physical laws, or else it would be creating itself, which is a notion I have refuted previously. Therefore, it seems that this characteristic of God is a necessary component of the First Cause entity in question.
2.) An eternally existing entity.
As mentioned earlier, it is necessary that the First Cause entity is eternal, or else that entity would require a cause itself, based on the principle “Everything which begins to exist requires a cause”. It therefore is true that the First Cause entity in question must have existed eternally, otherwise leading to an infinite regression of events, which is a logical impossibility.
3.) An entity with the ability to make decisions.
This is the most important point with regards to the identification of the First Cause entity. If it can be shown that the entity responsible for the creation of the universe makes decisions, you are basically forced to acknowledge the existence of God in one form or another. A naturalistic cause does not have the ability to make decisions. Therefore, if this point is proven, it seems inevitable that we will be forced to admit that God is the only logical possibility for the First Cause in question, or at least the most plausible possibility.
Such a justification of this characteristic is possible. The First Cause in question requires an entity with the ability to make decisions, because an eternally existing cause without such an ability is not capable of creating something unique. This is because, since it has existed forever, the naturally occurring cause would have already created the universe. An automated, inanimate cause cannot will something into existence, because such a cause only responds to conditions. Since it would have existed forever, such conditions would have been met an eternity ago and our universe would have already existed forever. Either that or the conditions would have never been met, and our universe would not exist. On the other hand, God has the ability to make decisions, and thus can “will” something into existence even in the absence of any automated condition to do so. An inanimate, eternally existing cause cannot create something unique, while an entity that is able to make decisions can.
This concept can be difficult to grasp. Imagine that there was a giant lever, and if this lever was pulled down, the universe would be created, if it is left as it is, the universe will not be created. There are three possibilities for this lever:
1. It may never be pulled, so that no universe is created.
2. It may be pulled from eternity (in other words, it is always pulled down).
3. It may be pulled at a certain time, say, fifteen billion years ago.
Option 1 is false because the universe exists. Option 2 is theoretically possible, but it would result in an eternally existing universe, which has been demonstrated to be false. This leaves Option 3. How could this lever be pulled down after waiting for an eternity at a certain time? Let us postulate a Rude Goldberg machine, in which an extraordinarily complex chain reaction lasting trillions of years leads to the eventual pull of the lever. Could this explain the origin of the universe, in theory?
No, because even an extremely long Rude Goldberg machine would not cause the universe to be created a finite time ago. From the standpoint of eternity, a machine that takes up 10 trillion years has no effect. Infinity – 10 trillion = Infinity. There is simply no way for the machine to effect the infinity. Thus, even a Rude Goldberg machine lasting 10 trillion years would result in Option 2, which is untenable. Thus, a personal agent with the free decision to create the universe (or, to follow the example, pull the lever) is required.
At least three characteristics of God line up perfectly and essentially with the necessary characteristics of the First Cause, including the all-important attribute of being a personal agent with free will capacities. We are forced to conclude that God is the only reasonable solution to the question of why the universe exists, if in fact the three premises of the Cosmological Argument are valid
seems like you've done likewise.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaffaCake
yes.Quote:
You believe that God is perfect, yes?
i didn't mention that that concept is inclusive of all situations though :$. so i hadn't completely ruled out the room for exceptions...Quote:
According to your previous statement something that is perfect must be attributed to a higher being.
You seem to be twisting my argument. are you?Quote:
Therefore, God must be attributed to a higher being.
Look at yourself and Gossamer Skye, it's obvious to each of you that the other is wrong when it comes to the 'evidence'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supreme
That being the case, why is it any less than obvious that both of you are wrong?
That would turn my mother into a Satanist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supreme
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSpoon
Are you confabulating? This thread is about the existence of God, not finite details of which religion. I think it is an inherent problem with most atheists. They take a bigger bite than they can chew out of everything and still come out the fools..
I think you'd feel more at home on the atheist forum, they scrutinize topics at dumbo's pace and congratulate each other for points ill made!
all the best