Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    Creating an action and commiting an action are one and the same.
    Evil is a noun though; I don't think they are the same.

    I'm tired. Agree to disagree?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Why does God allow so much suffering?


    Easy answer:

    Doesn't exist
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Evil is a noun though; I don't think they are the same.

    I'm tired. Agree to disagree?
    Create and commit are both verbs, they both mean to bring about, creating and commiting evil both mean to bring about evil.

    Nah
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Why ask me? Go and ask god is my answer.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    Create and commit are both verbs, they both mean to bring about, creating and commiting evil both mean to bring about evil.

    Nah
    Not in this case. Creating evil here I would say means creating the potential for it to happen. It's like in sport where the rule makers tell you what actions causes a foul without having to commit the foul themselves. God is the rule maker whilst you and I are the players.

    OK you win then. :emo:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Not in this case. Creating evil here I would say means creating the potential for it to happen. It's like in sport where the rule makers tell you what actions causes a foul without having to commit the foul themselves. God is the rule maker whilst you and I are the players.

    OK you win then. :emo:
    But God created both potential for evil and specific instances of evil ! It's just that they express it through another creation of theirs, us

    Fine :lol:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    God was created to ease suffering by bronze age uneducated peasants in the Middle East. Seriously you lot need to drop God, I am sure none of you believe in Santa and there is just as much (rather lack of) proof for his existence.

    God most likely doesn't exist. Stop caring and enjoy your short time in this wonderful universe.
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    See this is the problem the early christians had.They couldnt reconcile an all loving god with the suffering that exists in the world.Hence they invented the devil to explain evil.Of course that doesnt really work since God is omnipotent and must have known lucifer would rebel before he did.Also it suggests the devil has power to go against god which would mean god isnt all powerful.But really the explanation is that god doesnt exist and never has done.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    That story is an obvious and well-known fabrication, Einstein said no such thing. In fact, we know that Einstein considered the concept of a personal god childish.

    Second, my inner chemist kicks in with the excerpt about heat. First off, what we describe as cold isn't the absence of heat. Heat, which is just movement of atoms, disappears at 0 K, but this temperature is in fact theoretical. Due to the nature of reality this temperature can never be reached and thus atoms are always vibrating no matter what. Therefore by that absurd definition everything is always hot. The point is that cold is a relative term. No one can deny that it is cold in the Arctic despite the fact that all the atoms there are moving and thus "hot" going by that story's unscientific hogwash. Every time we feel cold we are still very much full of heat.

    Second, darkness IS a thing. This is obvious to anyone that has eyes and come to think of it, to everyone who is blind too! Just because it cannot be measured as an independent quantity does not mean it isn't a thing. Describing darkness as the absence of light does not make it any less of a thing than describing tall as the absence of short does.

    Moreover, I find if pretty funny that the text then tries to extrapolate that to evil implying that it isn't a real thing unto itself (whatever the hell that means). Most of the major religions are pretty clear that evil is definitely real and that's it the work of Satan or some form of adversary to God.

    In short, as well as that story being an invention, it employs poor science and tortured logic.
    I do agree that the story is not real, but I do think that - like, ironically, a biblical parable - it makes a good point: words are a human invention (like the story), which can be combined to mean all manner of things. Someone living in the Middle East might call London at 18 degrees cold, and someone living in Siberia might call it warm. As you point out, it's relative to context.

    I cannot profess to know for certain but, similarly, perhaps God just has a different context, and therefore a different view on what exactly constitutes "suffering".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    But God created both potential for evil and specific instances of evil ! It's just that they express it through another creation of theirs, us

    Fine :lol:
    Still not committing evil imo. This is leading into the whole free will argument (which I cba to debate ).

    If you're interested you should read these. It's possible (or probable) that we don't have free will in a wholly naturalistic, God-free world view.
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    What if the suffering has reasons behind it? If God is all-good then every action he does must outclass the goodness of every alternative action he could do right?

    So as an analogy when Jesus suffered and died it could be a more good action of letting his son die on the cross than saving him becuase of how it brings salvation and removes sin etc.
    Except that when Jesus died on the cross it was so that mankinds sins could be forgiven.He essentially took the punishment that mankind deserved.But thats pretty barbaric when you think about it.He couldnt just say I forgive you.He had to have his own son crucified just so he could forgive sins.Which actually makes him pretty sadistic.It also undermines the view that the new testement god is more loving than in the old testement.God is actually just as cruel in the new testement.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    Except that when Jesus died on the cross it was so that mankinds sins could be forgiven.He essentially took the punishment that mankind deserved.But thats pretty barbaric when you think about it.He couldnt just say I forgive you.He had to have his own son crucified just so he could forgive sins.Which actually makes him pretty sadistic.It also undermines the view that the new testement god is more loving than in the old testement.God is actually just as cruel in the new testement.
    Fair point.

    "Preach it brother!"

    EDIT: Actually, I watched a video where John Lennox explains this exact point made by Dawkins. It did actually make a bit more sense when I watched it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Still not committing evil imo. This is leading into the whole free will argument (which I cba to debate ).

    If you're interested you should read these. It's possible (or probable) that we don't have free will in a wholly naturalistic, God-free world view.
    Well I think God is committing evil. We're just a proxy.
    An analogy would be that God is the gunman and we are the bullets.

    Good reads, thanks. My view on free will arguments is that they're rather meaningless, as the conclusions made on whether it exists always seem to be the result of moving the goalposts of what constitutes free will in the first place.
    It's like someone replying to an argument that concludes dogs don't exist with an argument that concludes cats exist.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    Well I think God is committing evil. We're just a proxy.
    An analogy would be that God is the gunman and we are the bullets.

    Good reads, thanks. My view on free will arguments in that they're rather meaningless, as the conclusions made on whether it exists alway seems to be the result of moving the goalposts of what constitutes free will in the first place.
    It's like someone replying to an argument that concludes dogs don't exist with an argument that concludes cats exist.
    Fair enough.

    In that case "free will" might be too dodgy. "Determinism" is better. Only requires a 'yes or no' answer (kind of).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    God is totally evil. Free will with an omniscient, omnipotent god is a joke. Morality is even worse, morality has nothing to do with justice.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    But God has the ability to elimate all suffering and still provide whatever goodness you may be hinting at here. Yet God does not.
    Exactly.
    It appears a huge contradiction for Christians to argue God is a benevolent, omnipotent being who created the universe, engineered the Immaculate Conception and virgin birth, whose son died and resurrected 3 days later.
    But he can't stop natural disasters because we humans would be incapable of appreciating the dawn chorus.

    If God is magic, then he can do it all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The short answer is simply that God doesn't exist. The existence of evil and suffering contradicts fundamental aspects of gods character. Therefore god can't exist

    Of course you can argue the theodicies, which attempts to vindicate god in response to evil and suffering that militates against God. However the underlying problem lies. as hard you can try to justify evil and suffering, not all suffering is good/just.

    "Either god cannot abolish evil/suffering or he will not; if he cannot he is not all powerful; if he will not he is not all good"(Hume-i think). Anyways this quote simplifies the issue of evil/suffering. It's existence directly challenges the qualities of God. So either god doesnt exist. Or he does but is not all good or all powerful. The biblical gods can't exist however it's more likely thats a incompetent god exists.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    It's actually around 50/50 I think.
    So roughly the same as the entirety of the UK then.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    That story is an obvious and well-known fabrication, Einstein said no such thing. In fact, we know that Einstein considered the concept of a personal god childish.

    Second, my inner chemist kicks in with the excerpt about heat. First off, what we describe as cold isn't the absence of heat. Heat, which is just movement of atoms, disappears at 0 K, but this temperature is in fact theoretical. Due to the nature of reality this temperature can never be reached and thus atoms are always vibrating no matter what. Therefore by that absurd definition everything is always hot. The point is that cold is a relative term. No one can deny that it is cold in the Arctic despite the fact that all the atoms there are moving and thus "hot" going by that story's unscientific hogwash. Every time we feel cold we are still very much full of heat.

    Second, darkness IS a thing. This is obvious to anyone that has eyes and come to think of it, to everyone who is blind too! Just because it cannot be measured as an independent quantity does not mean it isn't a thing. Describing darkness as the absence of light does not make it any less of a thing than describing tall as the absence of short does.

    Moreover, I find if pretty funny that the text then tries to extrapolate that to evil implying that it isn't a real thing unto itself (whatever the hell that means). Most of the major religions are pretty clear that evil is definitely real and that's it the work of Satan or some form of adversary to God.

    In short, as well as that story being an invention, it employs poor science and tortured logic.
    +1
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shumaya)
    lol so people suffer so that God can test people. God knows everything so he knows who'll pass the test before the test takes place and the people who fail the test end up in hell for failing a test that God knew they'd fail before they were even born

    makes sense
    But the fact is that God CAN'T tell if they will fail the test because humans have freedom and autonomy and without it there would be no point in humans existing- the concept of heaven and hell relys on the freedom humans have to make these decisions.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.