natewood3 0 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Since this is a very common objection to Christianity, is the presence of evil in the world contradictory to the Bible's description of God being good and all-powerful? In other words, is evil a problem for the Christian worldview, which demonstrates that the Christian worldview is incoherent and false?Many non-Christians say that a proof that God does not exist is the existence of evil in the world, because if God was all-powerful, He wouldn't allow it because He is also a good and loving God. Or maybe He cannot stop evil from being in the world, so He must not be all-powerful. I would like to hear everyone's thoughts on this... Link to post Share on other sites
Mattnxtc 0 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Since this is a very common objection to Christianity, is the presence of evil in the world contradictory to the Bible's description of God being good and all-powerful? In other words, is evil a problem for the Christian worldview, which demonstrates that the Christian worldview is incoherent and false?Many non-Christians say that a proof that God does not exist is the existence of evil in the world, because if God was all-powerful, He wouldn't allow it because He is also a good and loving God. Or maybe He cannot stop evil from being in the world, so He must not be all-powerful. I would like to hear everyone's thoughts on this...I havent heard this argument per se but I will add in some thoughts on it though. Sin does not in anyway call into the doubt of God. In fact it shows exactly the concept God gave to man. He gave man the choice to follow him or follow the devil. It was something God had to do in order to allow man to truly love or not. As for not stopping evil...The end times has been told already. We know what to expect. Jesus said at least 2 parables that I know of exactly dealing with this sort of situations...If you have a bible turn to Matthew 13 and read verses 24-30, 36-43 and 47-52...it makes very clear what Gods plan is for believers and nonbelievers. they parables b/c that was was the OT said the Messiah would speak in Link to post Share on other sites
ShakeZuma 585 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 I think I know what Nate is getting at here, and its one of the same questions I ask all the time about God.Basically, if God is all powerfull, how can he allow horrible things to happen, like an eight year old girl being raped and murdered. Or even just being raped and having the rest of her life destoyed because of it. It doesn't make sense to me. I can see how people can say that God has a plan for everybody, but thats a pretty crappy plan for her. Link to post Share on other sites
Mattnxtc 0 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 I think I know what Nate is getting at here, and its one of the same questions I ask all the time about God.Basically, if God is all powerfull, how can he allow horrible things to happen, like an eight year old girl being raped and murdered. Or even just being raped and having the rest of her life destoyed because of it. It doesn't make sense to me. I can see how people can say that God has a plan for everybody, but thats a pretty crappy plan for her.Yes it is a very crappy plan for her and it is something every human sees as a crappy plan. It something that as a christian I ask God why it was necessary. And to be honest I really dont have the perfect answer only God does. What I can say is that unspeakable sin happens on this earth. Those who rape like that will have to pay for their sin. The girl can still find comfort in God for the unspeakable damage she suffered. Putting her faith in God can go a long way to helping her deal with the suffering. I know it sounds corny but it is the truth. Knowing that something like God loves you enough to die for you is a huge relief to a christian. Knowing that when she gets to heaven He will turn to her and say "well done My good and faithful servant."Unfortunately sin is a byproduct of the earth for the time being. Will this always be the case? no but for now we must struggle through it. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 "man cannot comprehend the ways of god" Link to post Share on other sites
Mattnxtc 0 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 "man cannot comprehend the ways of god" did i say that? when i wrote it i wondered how long it would be before i heard from you on this though. Do i know why God does everything He does? of course not...I gave the best possible answer I could. As i have said many many many times... We dont know why God does everything He does...Would I like to know why God feels it necessary to allow those kinds of crimes? Of course.. does that mean i just ignore it and say o well God did it so o well...No i dont..I still search for answers...just as you search for those answers with science... Link to post Share on other sites
FloatingHome 0 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 I have seen these arguments and finally decided to jump in--this, combined with the free will discussion are all part of a paradox that the Bible presents. I am not judging Christians or Atheists, just wanted to provide the complete paradox for people to consider. Here it is:If God is all powerful, all good, and all knowing, then the existence of both free will and evil is a problem. Either one, free will or evil, alone is not a problem from a logical point of view--but when taken together the three attributes contributed to God present a logical paradox:If God is all good and all powerful he would have to eliminate all evil. All good or absolute good is the absence of evil. The traditional Christian response to this is the existence of free will--God is all good, people make choices that lead to evil.This introduces the problem of God being all knowing--if God knows the choice you are going to make will lead to evil, and God is all good, there are only two choices left:1. God prevents ones choice of evil since he is all powerful2. God allows ones choice to make a decision that leads to evilIf one believes in option one, then there is no free will, since God is directing you choices. Not to mention that since God already knows the decision, it is a pre-determined decision--though to the one with the choice it doesn't seem or feel as though it is predetermined.If you choose option 2, then one can not argue that God is all good--since he has allowed evil to exist when he had the power to prevent it.This logical paradox has existed for thousands of years and been argued by philosophers and religous scholars forever--there is not definitave answer. The only conclusion one can make is that applying logical reasoning to religous faith is ultimately flawed since the basis of faith is believing with out conclusive proof.The key is that the paradox is created through logic, where ones belief in God comes from faith. Whichever side you are on, or if like me you are stuck in paralysis still trying to make sense of it all, this argument will continue indefinately since no one can prove or disprove God through logic...quite simply, either you believe or you do not. Link to post Share on other sites
Mattnxtc 0 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 This introduces the problem of God being all knowing--if God knows the choice you are going to make will lead to evil, and God is all good, there are only two choices left:1. God prevents ones choice of evil since he is all powerful2. God allows ones choice to make a decision that leads to evil If one believes in option one, then there is no free will, since God is directing you choices. Not to mention that since God already knows the decision, it is a pre-determined decision--though to the one with the choice it doesn't seem or feel as though it is predetermined.If you choose option 2, then one can not argue that God is all good--since he has allowed evil to exist when he had the power to prevent it.This was correct up until ur analysis of option 2. Could that be an choice for option 2? Yes...but is it the only choice? no. another possibility is that He allows you to make your own choices on what you do. The major problem i see with your logic on this is that it assumes that evil is allowed absolute freedom. That is not true, it is not what the bible preaches and in fact it isnt what man preaches. If you sin you will pay for it. Somebody coudl brag about how they got away with 100s of evil acts on this earth and never got caught. But a time comes when they have to face God...and He will hold them accountable for thier sin. Could he have prevented it? Yes but then what choices do we have at all? Do you see? By allowing us to sin we cannot stand before Him and try to cop out on anything. It was our free choice to do what we did and now we have to pay the penalty for it. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 As i have said many many many times... We dont know why God does everything He does...how do you know he's doing it at all? Link to post Share on other sites
natewood3 0 Posted March 15, 2006 Author Share Posted March 15, 2006 I think some of you have expressed the problem. After reading my first post, I see that I didn't do a good job of doing so.If God is all-powerful, could He not prevent evil from happening? Of course, but there IS evil in the world. Would a good and loving God not prevent all evil from happening? If so, then God is either not good and loving, or He is not all-powerful. If one of these are true, He is not the God of the Bible, and therefore, Christianity is false.How do you feel and respond when you hear of some uncle molesting or raping is niece? How do you feel when you hear of parents torturing their children? How do you feel when you hear of a man raping an infant and leaving it to die?What is your natural response to evil in the world? Does it make you happy? Are you indifferent and give an "Oh well" attitude? Does it make you angry or furious? Does it make you want to do the same to those who committed such evil? I believe this is an important question when discussing the problem of evil...Of course, you can simply deny that evil exists... Link to post Share on other sites
FloatingHome 0 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Let me rephrase the logical argument: obviously you have faith and I am not trying to dis-prove your faith. I am trying to show the struggle for those of us wrestling with our own faith vs. our own logical biases in viewing the world.For the second option I point out, you state: "He allows you to make your own choices on what you do."Now, purely from logic and the omni properties associated with God, how can you say that God, being all good and all powerful, creates a being that chooses evil? Then, add into this that God is all knowing--which means from His creation of humans He knew that one would choose evil. Logically, you have a paradox: you can't have free will unless God is not all knowing or you can't have evil unless God is not all good. Perhaps this is a good time to discuss what logic is: Logic is the humans best tool for understanding the events, actions, experience in the world through reasoning.Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof.To believe these qualities exist in God, you must have faith. Faith is not a bad thing, it may turn out it is more correct than logic. I was just pointing out how logic causes problems when coupled with faith--I am doing this because this is the biggest personal roadblock I have with accepting the Bible. Link to post Share on other sites
natewood3 0 Posted March 16, 2006 Author Share Posted March 16, 2006 Let me rephrase the logical argument: obviously you have faith and I am not trying to dis-prove your faith. I am trying to show the struggle for those of us wrestling with our own faith vs. our own logical biases in viewing the world.For the second option I point out, you state: "He allows you to make your own choices on what you do."Now, purely from logic and the omni properties associated with God, how can you say that God, being all good and all powerful, creates a being that chooses evil? Then, add into this that God is all knowing--which means from His creation of humans He knew that one would choose evil. Logically, you have a paradox: you can't have free will unless God is not all knowing or you can't have evil unless God is not all good. Perhaps this is a good time to discuss what logic is: Logic is the humans best tool for understanding the events, actions, experience in the world through reasoning.Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof.To believe these qualities exist in God, you must have faith. Faith is not a bad thing, it may turn out it is more correct than logic. I was just pointing out how logic causes problems when coupled with faith--I am doing this because this is the biggest personal roadblock I have with accepting the Bible.Since you do not accept the Bible, you obviously do not accept the God of the Bible. However, by what standard do you call something "evil"? For you to say that "evil" is a problem for the Christian worldview, you are assuming that there is a standard outside the Christian worldview that says that this thing is evil and this thing is good. What is the standard to which you are appealing, especially since you do not accept the God of the Bible?I am glad that you brought up logic. You gave your definition of logic. Are laws of logic material or immaterial? Are they universal (apply to all people) and unchanging?You also said the traditional response is the free will argument, but I do not believe or use that argument to explain the problem of evil...we will get to that later though.BTW, thanks for your comments so far... Link to post Share on other sites
FloatingHome 0 Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Natewood--I don't really know if I accept the God of the Bible or not. I am still trying to figure it out for myself. Right now, if I classify myself as any religion or associated with a religion it is Quaker. That means I believe in the Bible, I believe in God and in Jesus, but I believe that one has a personal connection to God that is more important than any ideas or views presented by a Priest. Everyone has the ability to communicate directly with God--there is no hierarchy that allows the Pope to have a closer relationship to God.For the purpose of this discussion, I am accepting the view of evil in terms of the Bible, since we are discussing a pardox of the Bible. But what I am trying to say is not that evil by itself is a problem for the Christian worldview--it is only a problem when you look at the omni properties associated with God.The real point of departure from Christian belief, or really, belief in any religion is the basis of faith. Faith and logic are opposite belief structures--so what I have been trying to communicate is that trying to resolve the problems that arise from this contridiction is bound to end in an endless cycle.I most certainly believe that there is a standard outside of Christian belief for moral behaviors. Essentially, every religion / belief structure has created their own set of laws. Now, I personally believe that there is merit in all of these structures as well as problems. I guess, what I am trying to say, is that I do not have the ability to agree that the Christian belief structure is more valid than the Muslim, Buddhist, Daoist, Jewish, or any other structure. The most recent thoughts I have had on this subject deal with the idea that one can not know God's plan. If you accept that belief, which logic would never allow for, you can make an argument that it is very possible for all of the Gods represented in different religions to be one and the same. He decides the best way for different people to worship him and to observe him, no me. Of course, a strict reading of the 10 commandments includes the idea that one shall not worship an idol other than me. However, if one has a personal relationship with God and God directs different people to worship in a different way, I have to accept it. Personally, I believe that you have to feel comfortable with you behavior, to believe that what you do is moral. There are few right or wrong situations. The only real rule I believe should apply to people is that they should believe that their actions are moral and just. There is no way to say what is right or wrong for another person, you can only control your own behavior and reactions when presented with a situation. As for my beliefs on laws of logic, I don't really have an answer since this could apply to so many various aspects of life with many unintended consequences to having a firm position. For example, laws of mathematics would be considered laws of logic, government laws would be considered laws of logic, as would any laws constructed by man. Yet my views on laws of government and laws of math would be extremely different, since they are applied and used in very different ways.Thank you for your comments--I enjoy discussing thoughts like this as it always help me to rethink my positions and beliefs. Link to post Share on other sites
natewood3 0 Posted March 16, 2006 Author Share Posted March 16, 2006 Floating Home, Natewood--I don't really know if I accept the God of the Bible or not. I am still trying to figure it out for myself. Right now, if I classify myself as any religion or associated with a religion it is Quaker. That means I believe in the Bible, I believe in God and in Jesus, but I believe that one has a personal connection to God that is more important than any ideas or views presented by a Priest. Everyone has the ability to communicate directly with God--there is no hierarchy that allows the Pope to have a closer relationship to God.I don't much about the Quakers, but I do agree that we have a personal communication with God. All Christians are said to be priests, meaning that they have direct access to God. So I agree with what you said about that.For the purpose of this discussion, I am accepting the view of evil in terms of the Bible, since we are discussing a pardox of the Bible. But what I am trying to say is not that evil by itself is a problem for the Christian worldview--it is only a problem when you look at the omni properties associated with God.What would you say evil or sin is, according to the Bible?The real point of departure from Christian belief, or really, belief in any religion is the basis of faith. Faith and logic are opposite belief structures--so what I have been trying to communicate is that trying to resolve the problems that arise from this contridiction is bound to end in an endless cycle.Faith and logic? Do you mean by this faith and reason? Could you demonstrate why faith and reason/logic in opposite belief structures?I most certainly believe that there is a standard outside of Christian belief for moral behaviors. Essentially, every religion / belief structure has created their own set of laws. Now, I personally believe that there is merit in all of these structures as well as problems. I guess, what I am trying to say, is that I do not have the ability to agree that the Christian belief structure is more valid than the Muslim, Buddhist, Daoist, Jewish, or any other structure. What you are telling me is that the laws of morality are NOT universal (the laws of morality differ from one group to another), NOT unchanging (because all worldviews create their own set of laws). In other words, the laws of morality are subjective. Whatever is right for you is right, and whatever is wrong for you is wrong. However, I have no place to judge whether or not something is right for you, as you do not have that right to tell me if something is wrong or right for me. Am I correct?The most recent thoughts I have had on this subject deal with the idea that one can not know God's plan. If you accept that belief, which logic would never allow for, you can make an argument that it is very possible for all of the Gods represented in different religions to be one and the same. He decides the best way for different people to worship him and to observe him, no me. How would you prove that we cannot know God's plan?Of course, a strict reading of the 10 commandments includes the idea that one shall not worship an idol other than me. However, if one has a personal relationship with God and God directs different people to worship in a different way, I have to accept it. Is God contradictory or can God contradict Himself?Personally, I believe that you have to feel comfortable with you behavior, to believe that what you do is moral. There are few right or wrong situations. The only real rule I believe should apply to people is that they should believe that their actions are moral and just. There is no way to say what is right or wrong for another person, you can only control your own behavior and reactions when presented with a situation. This sounds somewhat like self-deception. I could make myself believe that what I am doing is moral when in fact what I am doing is immoral. If there is no way to say what is right or wrong for another person, then there is no such thing as evil. How can you call it "evil" for an uncle to rape his niece? To say, "That is evil" assumes a standard of good outside ourselves. With what you said above, we have no right to say this thing or that thing is evil.As for my beliefs on laws of logic, I don't really have an answer since this could apply to so many various aspects of life with many unintended consequences to having a firm position. For example, laws of mathematics would be considered laws of logic, government laws would be considered laws of logic, as would any laws constructed by man. Yet my views on laws of government and laws of math would be extremely different, since they are applied and used in very different ways.Thank you for your comments--I enjoy discussing thoughts like this as it always help me to rethink my positions and beliefs.Can the statement, "The sky is blue and the sky is not blue" be considered contradictory in all places at all times? In other words, is the law of contradiction applicable and universal? Are all people expected to think rationally and consistently? Or is it fine for someone to think irrationally? That is what I mean by are the laws of logic universal and unchanging. Could it someday be that it is alright to contradict yourself? If you did not believe that people should act and think rationally, you would not be having this conversation. You expect me to think rationally and not contradict myself, to be consistent, just as I expect the same for you. In other words, these logical laws are by nature universal, immaterial, and unchanging. The question is, how do you account for this? Can you give me a basis for having universal, unchanging, immaterial laws? Where do such laws come from? How can we have such laws? If we did not have these laws, we are left with irrationality and absurdity. Link to post Share on other sites
FloatingHome 0 Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Wow--you are asking tough questions. I will try my best to answer them:"What would you say evil or sin is, according to the Bible?"I really don't have space to dictate it all, but essentially, acting in a way that is contridictory to the Bible (though I admit that I have made personal acceptions which is still a point of conflict for myself). This would include the 10 commandments and other writings in the Bible. I tend to listen to the words of Jesus a lot. But I am in no way a Bible scholar, so I do not have a very specific answer for you."Faith and logic? Do you mean by this faith and reason? Could you demonstrate why faith and reason/logic in opposite belief structures?"The demonstration is simple--faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof. Therefore, faith exists outside of logic. God exists outside of logic--one can not prove God exists, yet one can choose to believe in God. This choice is faith. You can't prove the existence of God, yet some people "know" that he is there. The reason they are opposite belief structures is that logic rests on the principle that one can prove beyond doubt something to be true. 2+2=4 is logic--if I have two stones and you give me two stones, I can show you four. Everytime you do this, you end up with the same result. Faith would be if you believed that there was a way for 2+2=6...it is outside of logic. Math may be a poor way to show this example, but that is the essence of what I am trying to say. Through faith, one can believe things that logically, or reasonably, seem impossible. Not saying that all religious people do believe outside of logic--but I do think that there is, and never will be, absolute proof of God that satisfies everyone."What you are telling me is that the laws of morality are NOT universal (the laws of morality differ from one group to another), NOT unchanging (because all worldviews create their own set of laws). In other words, the laws of morality are subjective. Whatever is right for you is right, and whatever is wrong for you is wrong. However, I have no place to judge whether or not something is right for you, as you do not have that right to tell me if something is wrong or right for me. Am I correct?"This is complicated. I think that many moral laws are accepted across multiple religions, but some are unique to different religions. For example, some religions believe in vegetarianism, some believe that cows are sacred and not to be eaten, and others believe that one should not eat pigs. These would be moral laws that differ depending on ones religion. No religion (at least that I know of), allows for murder. Some allow for sacrifices, some allow for death penalty to criminal--but not malicous murder. This is a long way of saying that some morality is universal and some is not. But I do believe it is not for me or you to judge another behavior in terms of morality, yet it is our job to judge others behaviors in terms of the man made laws (e.g. juries). "How would you prove that we cannot know God's plan?"I can't--I said when I wrote that section this belief does not hold up under logic. I would say that one can't know God's plan because one can not know another beings true thoughts and feelings at any moment. "Is God contradictory or can God contradict Himself?"Most likely, God is not contradictory and does not contradict himself. It is humans who contradict God. For example, humans wrote the Bible. It has been translated many times. It is very likely in the writing or translating of the Bible that many contridictions arise, rather than from God himself. So, I doubt God is contradictory, but I also know that there is no way to prove this to any satisfaction."This sounds somewhat like self-deception. I could make myself believe that what I am doing is moral when in fact what I am doing is immoral. If there is no way to say what is right or wrong for another person, then there is no such thing as evil. How can you call it "evil" for an uncle to rape his niece? To say, "That is evil" assumes a standard of good outside ourselves. With what you said above, we have no right to say this thing or that thing is evil."Two concepts here that I am trying to convey. We can consider an act to be evil, but not the person. In your example, the act of raping the neice is an evil act. I have no right to consider the uncle evil. I don't believe in judging the person, but one must always look at acts to determine good vs. evil. It is in exploring the act one can apply self inspection to consider thier own actions. Your other point of self-deception--it is only self-deception if you choose to decieve yourself. If you "make yourself" believe in something, you are going against your original belief and deceiving yourself. I am not saying I do not do this, just that I try not to."Can the statement, "The sky is blue and the sky is not blue" be considered contradictory in all places at all times? In other words, is the law of contradiction applicable and universal? Are all people expected to think rationally and consistently? Or is it fine for someone to think irrationally? That is what I mean by are the laws of logic universal and unchanging. Could it someday be that it is alright to contradict yourself? If you did not believe that people should act and think rationally, you would not be having this conversation. You expect me to think rationally and not contradict myself, to be consistent, just as I expect the same for you. In other words, these logical laws are by nature universal, immaterial, and unchanging. The question is, how do you account for this? Can you give me a basis for having universal, unchanging, immaterial laws? Where do such laws come from? How can we have such laws? If we did not have these laws, we are left with irrationality and absurdity."A lot of ideas to work through here--though I find it quite amazing you use the example of the sky being blue. I learned from a professor that in Chinese there is no word to correspond to the English word blue. In Chinese, they only have variations on the word green. I can't prove this because I don't speak Chinese so I have to trust this professor, which I do. If there is no word for blue in Chinese, then the sky is not blue to them. Is that contridictory to what you and I believe?Essentially, humans are limited by knowledge, in specific, knowledge of language. If one of us witnesses an event that we have no word for, it is difficult to describe or remember. Hence language is usually the point of contridiction. In one culture, belching is considered rude. In another, it is a compliment to the chef--is this a contridiction? Or is it just that different cultures have different expressions that are accepted among them. One is taught these expressions / beliefs from childhood, through school, and continually through life. So contridictions are bound to happen as one continues through life. As for acting and thinking rationally, it works both ways. The fact that I like certain music is usually not rational for me--it is a feeling, a reaction that I have with the music. I can't describe the reason for why, I can't predict what music does it (though I can predict certain music that almost never will). I can hear a song one day and have a profound reaction, yet hear it another day and not feel anything. So we all have rational and irrational thoughts all the time. In terms of our communication / rationality thought and action, we have agreed to it for the sake of communication. There is no law that says we have to, but we both seem to enjoy the benefits of this implicit agreement. I believe it was Russel Betrand (sp) who called this the "social contract." We agree to behave in a certain way to be able to live and prosper together, without this unwritten agreement, societies would not be able to exist. I don't recall this theory in complete detail, and I remember there are many flaws with it, but that is the best explanation I can think of right now. So our rational behavior is a way for us to co-exist with relative peace--yet I do not believe it is universal.If one of us were to visit another culture, the beliefs of right and wrong, of rational behavior and irrational behavior would be very different. Some cultures are closer than others, but all have idiosyncriacies (sp?). This also gets back to the idea that some moral codes are universal, like not murdering. I don't know about enough cultures to know what they all are, but I do believe this. As for unchanging laws, I do not know if they exist. The only example I can think of is murder, I keep going back to it because I know of no society that has ever allowed murder. There may be one. I think laws themselves come from the human desire to succeed--success being continued life. If a society allows murder, it lessens the chances for success, rather than strengthen. So the only universal law I can think of is that, and it is based on humans desire to continue life. I am interested in your thoughts. Link to post Share on other sites
natewood3 0 Posted March 16, 2006 Author Share Posted March 16, 2006 Wow--you are asking tough questions. I will try my best to answer them:I really don't have space to dictate it all, but essentially, acting in a way that is contridictory to the Bible (though I admit that I have made personal acceptions which is still a point of conflict for myself). This would include the 10 commandments and other writings in the Bible. I tend to listen to the words of Jesus a lot. But I am in no way a Bible scholar, so I do not have a very specific answer for you.I would say sin or evil is acting, thinking, or speaking in a way that vilolates God's righteous and just standards, which are found in His divine revelation, the Word of God, the Bible.The demonstration is simple--faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof. Therefore, faith exists outside of logic. God exists outside of logic--one can not prove God exists, yet one can choose to believe in God. This choice is faith. You can't prove the existence of God, yet some people "know" that he is there. The reason they are opposite belief structures is that logic rests on the principle that one can prove beyond doubt something to be true. 2+2=4 is logic--if I have two stones and you give me two stones, I can show you four. Everytime you do this, you end up with the same result. Faith would be if you believed that there was a way for 2+2=6...it is outside of logic. Math may be a poor way to show this example, but that is the essence of what I am trying to say. Through faith, one can believe things that logically, or reasonably, seem impossible. Not saying that all religious people do believe outside of logic--but I do think that there is, and never will be, absolute proof of God that satisfies everyone.Faith, at least in the Biblical sense, involves knowledge of facts. It is a historical fact that Jesus Christ existed. If I do not know and believe that, I obviously will never be a Christian. I do not believe faith is simply a blind leap in the dark, or believing something apart from evidence or something that is contradictory. First, I do not believe the Christian worldview is contradictory, so I could not say my faith in the Bible and God goes against logic. Secondly, I do not believe God is "above" or "outside" logic. I would say that God's thinking is logical, and logic is ultimately based in God's nature (God is truth, God cannot lie, etc.). I do not believe then, that faith is believing contradictory or unreasonable things. How can you justify and account for the fact that 2+2 will ALWAYS equal 4? How do you know that? How do you know that the future is going to be like the past? That is essentially what you are saying. It has always equaled 4 in the past, so I assume it will in the future as well, but how do you know that it is always going to equal 4? How can you account for the future being like the past?This is complicated. I think that many moral laws are accepted across multiple religions, but some are unique to different religions. For example, some religions believe in vegetarianism, some believe that cows are sacred and not to be eaten, and others believe that one should not eat pigs. These would be moral laws that differ depending on ones religion. No religion (at least that I know of), allows for murder. Some allow for sacrifices, some allow for death penalty to criminal--but not malicous murder. This is a long way of saying that some morality is universal and some is not. But I do believe it is not for me or you to judge another behavior in terms of morality, yet it is our job to judge others behaviors in terms of the man made laws (e.g. juries). If only some laws of morality are accepted, and some are not, then the laws of morality in general cannot be universal. Is it right for me to tell you that you SHOULD NOT molest children? Is it right for you to get angry if I molest children?I can't--I said when I wrote that section this belief does not hold up under logic. I would say that one can't know God's plan because one can not know another beings true thoughts and feelings at any moment. What if God has revealed His thoughts and plans in His divine revelation in the Bible?Most likely, God is not contradictory and does not contradict himself. It is humans who contradict God. For example, humans wrote the Bible. It has been translated many times. It is very likely in the writing or translating of the Bible that many contridictions arise, rather than from God himself. So, I doubt God is contradictory, but I also know that there is no way to prove this to any satisfaction.I think I responded to this."This sounds somewhat like self-deception. I could make myself believe that what I am doing is moral when in fact what I am doing is immoral. If there is no way to say what is right or wrong for another person, then there is no such thing as evil. How can you call it "evil" for an uncle to rape his niece? To say, "That is evil" assumes a standard of good outside ourselves. With what you said above, we have no right to say this thing or that thing is evil."Two concepts here that I am trying to convey. We can consider an act to be evil, but not the person. In your example, the act of raping the neice is an evil act. I have no right to consider the uncle evil. I don't believe in judging the person, but one must always look at acts to determine good vs. evil. It is in exploring the act one can apply self inspection to consider thier own actions. My question is this again: On what basis do you consider something to be evil? What standard are you appealing to for you to show that the act of raping a child is evil? For you to say, "That is evil" automatically assumes some kind of standard whereby you are judging that act to be evil. I have a standard by which to judge all things. I don't believe you can give such a standard. If you cannot provide the standard by which you are judging any act to be good or evil, then you are unjustified in calling anything good or evil.Your other point of self-deception--it is only self-deception if you choose to decieve yourself. If you "make yourself" believe in something, you are going against your original belief and deceiving yourself. I am not saying I do not do this, just that I try not to.Most people do not try to put themselves in denial or self-deception.A lot of ideas to work through here--though I find it quite amazing you use the example of the sky being blue. I learned from a professor that in Chinese there is no word to correspond to the English word blue. In Chinese, they only have variations on the word green. I can't prove this because I don't speak Chinese so I have to trust this professor, which I do. If there is no word for blue in Chinese, then the sky is not blue to them. Is that contridictory to what you and I believe?Maybe that wasn't a good example. Can this statement be true at the same time: "My car is in the garage and my car is not in the garage." If it cannot be true at the same time, why?Essentially, humans are limited by knowledge, in specific, knowledge of language. If one of us witnesses an event that we have no word for, it is difficult to describe or remember. Hence language is usually the point of contridiction. In one culture, belching is considered rude. In another, it is a compliment to the chef--is this a contridiction? Or is it just that different cultures have different expressions that are accepted among them. One is taught these expressions / beliefs from childhood, through school, and continually through life. So contridictions are bound to happen as one continues through life. As for acting and thinking rationally, it works both ways. The fact that I like certain music is usually not rational for me--it is a feeling, a reaction that I have with the music. I can't describe the reason for why, I can't predict what music does it (though I can predict certain music that almost never will). I can hear a song one day and have a profound reaction, yet hear it another day and not feel anything. So we all have rational and irrational thoughts all the time. In terms of our communication / rationality thought and action, we have agreed to it for the sake of communication. There is no law that says we have to, but we both seem to enjoy the benefits of this implicit agreement. I believe it was Russel Betrand (sp) who called this the "social contract." We agree to behave in a certain way to be able to live and prosper together, without this unwritten agreement, societies would not be able to exist. I don't recall this theory in complete detail, and I remember there are many flaws with it, but that is the best explanation I can think of right now. So our rational behavior is a way for us to co-exist with relative peace--yet I do not believe it is universal.So you are telling me that if I would begin to lose this debate (I am not sure if we are really even debating), I could resort to irrationality and it would be fine, since there is no law that says we should act and think rationally? In other words, acting logically is a personal preference? I would say that laws of logic, including rationality, are universal and unchanging. If they are not, we would have irrationality, absurdity, and meaningless. My question for you is, where do these laws come from? Was there a time when all was simply absurd and irrational? If so, how did this develop into rationality?If one of us were to visit another culture, the beliefs of right and wrong, of rational behavior and irrational behavior would be very different. Some cultures are closer than others, but all have idiosyncriacies (sp?). This also gets back to the idea that some moral codes are universal, like not murdering. I don't know about enough cultures to know what they all are, but I do believe this. As for unchanging laws, I do not know if they exist. The only example I can think of is murder, I keep going back to it because I know of no society that has ever allowed murder. There may be one. I think laws themselves come from the human desire to succeed--success being continued life. If a society allows murder, it lessens the chances for success, rather than strengthen. So the only universal law I can think of is that, and it is based on humans desire to continue life. I am interested in your thoughts.Could you please explain why murder is wrong? You state laws come from human desires. In other words, morality comes from human preference and personal taste. What if it is my desire that no one in my tribe exists except for me? What if it makes me happy to murder people? On what basis are you going to object to that? Is it right if I murder you or someone you love? If you say yes, then you have just admitted that there is a standard OUTSIDE of us that we should obey and follow. If you say no, then I can murder you or anyone else, and no one is able to object. Link to post Share on other sites
Jimshoen 0 Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Natewood, I suggest reading the first part of C.S. Lewis's book "Mere Christianity" - Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe.It addresses many of the issues you are discussing. The whole book is worth reading. I've enjoyed the discussion, Thanks to all who contributed. Link to post Share on other sites
FloatingHome 0 Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 "I would say sin or evil is acting, thinking, or speaking in a way that vilolates God's righteous and just standards, which are found in His divine revelation, the Word of God, the Bible."Seems like we agree for the most part. I believe much more in action that thinking, for I do not believe thinking is impure. What I am trying to say by that is I believe that one must think about items that violate the revelations in the Bible to understand how they should behave in those situations.I also believe that many instances in life one is faced with situations that the Bible doesn't account for, apart from general guidelines. So you need to have a sense of your own moral code that you rely on in those situations. For example, if you are stopped at a red light in the middle of nowhere, no chance of being caught it you run it, do you?The Bible does not condone following the law of man when they are irrational, yet sitting at a stop light for no reason seems pretty irrational to me. During traffic, the stop light serves a useful pupose, but not at 4 am in the morning on deserted road. In that situation the Bible does not provide a standard right or wrong behavior. I believe one must have their own sense of how to behave in that situation, and life presents us with many more situations like this, than easily defined situations that match up with the Bible."Faith, at least in the Biblical sense, involves knowledge of facts. It is a historical fact that Jesus Christ existed. If I do not know and believe that, I obviously will never be a Christian. I do not believe faith is simply a blind leap in the dark, or believing something apart from evidence or something that is contradictory. First, I do not believe the Christian worldview is contradictory, so I could not say my faith in the Bible and God goes against logic. Secondly, I do not believe God is "above" or "outside" logic. I would say that God's thinking is logical, and logic is ultimately based in God's nature (God is truth, God cannot lie, etc.). I do not believe then, that faith is believing contradictory or unreasonable things."I can understand your reaction and I don't believe that faith is believing contridictory things per se, yet it is believing something that can not be proved to the satisfaction of everyone. Or perhaps, believing something that can not be proved yet is a better definition. How can you prove God exists? How can you prove to an atheist that God exists? "How can you justify and account for the fact that 2+2 will ALWAYS equal 4? How do you know that? How do you know that the future is going to be like the past? That is essentially what you are saying. It has always equaled 4 in the past, so I assume it will in the future as well, but how do you know that it is always going to equal 4? How can you account for the future being like the past?"I am not predicting the future. At one point humans believed the world was flat--the best logic to that point in time declared this and it was believed. Then, with technological advancement and different logical tools, this was proven not to be the case. So I can't predict that 2+2=4 will always be true. I can feel confident that given my experience and ability to test this idea, it is true. In no way to I think that the future thinking will be the same as our current or even our past thinking--the expansion of thought and ideas is one of the greatest parts of being human. To always believe one thing is true or must remain true is counter to my belief structure. Humans should evolve and learn new things, everyday and every year we should have a better understanding of what we know and what we do not know...but I would never say I can predict the future."If only some laws of morality are accepted, and some are not, then the laws of morality in general cannot be universal. Is it right for me to tell you that you SHOULD NOT molest children? Is it right for you to get angry if I molest children?"Again, you are looking for an absolute where I can not provide you with one. Given my cultural background and the society I live in, I do believe molesting children is wrong. I do believe it is OK for you to tell anyone that they should not molest children. And it is OK to feel anger if you ever know a molester, because it is against what you and I think is acceptable. It is not right to determine that the person who did the molesting is evil, however.Yet, I do not consider the fact that men slept with boys in ancient Greek societies to be evil. It was a practice that they believed was right and good. So I can't judge Plato's action of having sex with a boy as evil, since in his society, it would be evil if he did not. I do not have any way of knowing if this relationship affected the boy involved in a positive or negative way, so I am not one to judge it, since I can not know all of the circumstances involved.Yet, I do believe it is right to stop gential mutilation happenin in Africa, because we know that the affects of this cause serious health problems for the children it is done to. Perhaps that is a double standard, but that is how I feel."What if God has revealed His thoughts and plans in His divine revelation in the Bible?"My thought on this is that God has revealed what he wants us to know. He has not revealed every detail. He did not provide DNA models for all the animals, or diagrams for complex root structures of flowers. Yet, if you believe God created everything, he must have known these details as well. So the fact that God has provided the Bible is not the same as knowing His thoughts. It is knowing a portion of His thoughts, as relayed through humans and translated over time, but not all of His thoughts in total.Also, I am skeptical of the Bible being 100% accurate. Through over 2000 years of it's existence, multiple translations, documents uncovered that are not inlcuded in the Bible, one must question the human role in the creation of the modern Bible. This is not a question of God's rightousness or infallibility, but of mans. If we can agree that man is fallible, that how can we assume that there are no man made mistakes in the Bible?"My question is this again: On what basis do you consider something to be evil? What standard are you appealing to for you to show that the act of raping a child is evil? For you to say, "That is evil" automatically assumes some kind of standard whereby you are judging that act to be evil. I have a standard by which to judge all things. I don't believe you can give such a standard. If you cannot provide the standard by which you are judging any act to be good or evil, then you are unjustified in calling anything good or evil."My standard is my feeling about a situation, based on my religious morals, family values, and society morals. To put it more simply, I base evil on a gut feeling. It is my faith in humans and my faith in God that allows me to believe they won't allow me to stray or react incorrectly. I don't rely on a single source for all right or wrong decisions. I don't believe one can have a "standard" of right vs. wrong. One can only have a sense of what they believe--if you try to define a standard, or write a standard, you essentially create a checklist of right vs. wrong. Then one has the ability to get around the checklist. Here is a perfect example:According to the Bible, it is wrong to lie or be dishonest, I believe. So, what if I am completely honest, yet I am able to make someone think something that is not true. What if that was never my intent, but that was the cause of the conversation. I have not broken the standard as told by the Bible, yet I may decide that the way I acted was evil or bad. Not through intent, not through the Bible, but because of how I feel about the event.As to your second point about being justified to consider anything evil or not, of course I am justified, just as you are. It does not mean we can agree on what determines evil, or that there is necessarily a simple answer as to what evil is, but it our right as thinkers to have these opinions. It also does not mean one opinion is more valid than another--just different. Why should the Bible be the sole determination of whether an act is evil? Can you not think of anything evil that is not mentioned in the Bible? What about a corporation that creates a product hoping to help elderly eliminate pain, yet the product causes death in a few cases? The deaths are not intentional, did not show up in extensive testing, the best and most thorough testing available. How do you determine if the company behaved in an Evil way? What does the Bible tell you to believe in this example? You can draw on certain passages, you can try to create sense out of it from reading--but no where are you given an explicit answer. You need to determine that answer for yourself, based on your interpretation and understanding of your own belief structure."Most people do not try to put themselves in denial or self-deception."How do you know this? I think most people decieve themselves, not to commit crimes or to behave in unmoral ways, but to feel better about themselves and their place in the world. Since we are on a poker site, do you not think most poker players decieve themselves about what their poker skills are? I may agree that people don't try to, but I think people do.However, what you originally said was "if you make yourself," which indicates a concious choice. While I may over value my poker skills, I don't spend time trying to convince myself I am better than the pro players. It happens.So in terms of your previous example, if an uncle molested his daughter, my initial reaction is that is wrong. To convince myself it is not wrong, I would have to conciously decieve myself. So, it is the choice to decieve oneself that I am really talking about--not the everyday deceptions that all humans are prone to make."Maybe that wasn't a good example. Can this statement be true at the same time: "My car is in the garage and my car is not in the garage." If it cannot be true at the same time, why?"First, I think the example of the blue sky was perfect, because it shows why having a single definition of something is often very difficult. It further demonstrates the restrictions language places on ones ability to think. I am also interested in your response to whether the Chinese, who have no word for blue, contridict the statement that the "sky is blue." Or, put another way, if two cultures have a different way of viewing and expressing an event, is that a contridiction?To have fun with your statement, yes the statement can be true and not true at the same moment...if a person has one car in a garage and no other cars, the statement is true. If a person has two cars, one in the garage, one parked on he street, then the statement can be false as each use of the noun "car" can be relating to a different physical car. I just did this to show you the limitations of language again...What you are really trying to get at here is why can two contridictory statements not be true at the same time. Well, this goes back to the belief structure you want to employ:Using the rules of logic (and there are rules of logic), then this can't be try because it would imply any action has an infinite amount of consequences. For example, if 2+2=4 and 2+2=6, it really can't help us in terms of communication or development. Or if the word "jump" had contridictory meanings, it would become impossible to use jump to describe an event or activity. So logic would tell us that two contridictory statements can not co-exist.This does not mean it can't happen, just that logically, it can't happen. I don't personally believe that there is an belief structure that exists that does not run into problems. I don't believe that there are absolutes--for example, I find it very difficult to believe that every person who lived before the life of Christ is unable to enter Heaven, since the only way to enter Heaven is through the acceptance of Jesus...how do you reconcile this based on the writings in the Bible? I find this to be one of the most difficult questions to answer...Another example of logic and faith intersecting is the story of Job. Most people argue about all the bad things that happen to Job could never be done by a good God, but that is not what I want to discuss...what I find interesting is that God took all of his money, children and his wife as a test of his faith. At the end, he was rewarded with another wife, more children, and more money. The problem I have is how can one wife be equal or better or worse than another? How can one put a value on a life like that? Perhaps God can, but how can man? Is it the same as a child who loses his/her parents in an automobile accident and is then adopted by another family? Is the new mother and father equal to the old? How does one conclude this or prove this to be the case? I don't think it is possible--yet if you believe in the Bible and the story of Job, you believe this is fair because God was the one who did it. I consider that faith--Logic would dictate that the experience of the child is changed because of the loss of parents. Through studies, one can probably conclude (though this is an assumption on my part) that most times the child does not benefit from this experience, yet sometimes they will. But I don't think anyone would immediately think that this is good for the child...what are your thoughts?"So you are telling me that if I would begin to lose this debate (I am not sure if we are really even debating), I could resort to irrationality and it would be fine, since there is no law that says we should act and think rationally? In other words, acting logically is a personal preference? I would say that laws of logic, including rationality, are universal and unchanging. If they are not, we would have irrationality, absurdity, and meaningless. My question for you is, where do these laws come from? Was there a time when all was simply absurd and irrational? If so, how did this develop into rationality?"First, I definately don't consider this a debate--I think you are asking tough questions and I like to try to answer them...The first question you have regards acting rationally / logically. So to answer, yes, it is perfectly acceptable for you to act irrationally if you want. It will make being a part of a larger society difficult, but it is your right. For example, I consider the behavior many people to be irrational. I know when I lost my father I behaved in an irrational way, I refused to wear shoes to the funeral. Why? It made me feel good--no rational reason, just did. So you can and at times you most likely should behave irrationally.Second question: is acting rationally a choice--sometimes. When my father passed away I am not sure I made a choice I was so emotional--I just did. Other times, I do make concious choices to behave in a certain way. More powerful than the concious choice is the societal impact of not choosing--if you decide to not wear clothes conciously, you are also choosing to accept the concequences society will give you for that choice. This is much more powerful than your or my personal choice about rational behavior.third question: Where did these laws come from. Laws have evolved over time and have come from human experience. Remember, humans are still animals with a desire to survive. The first instinct of every mother I have met has been to protect their children. So survival is the first basis of every law. Then you have to look at the evolution of societies--why did some societies learn to write, or create certain laws. Typically, laws were a human reaction to a noticable problem--if a society allows murder, they reduce the number of members of their group, reducing the chances for survival. Hence, it makes sense to disallow murder. If a society allows family members to procreate, the gene pool becomes weakened and they are more prone to have mental and health problems, so eliminating family members procreating made sense. If a society does not work together to produce food to feed the population, people starve and the society becomes weaker, etc... The foundation of laws are typically reactions to protect the human race.You state that laws are universal--what laws are universal? Apart from maybe murder, I can't think of a single universal law that has existed across all societies and all times. And there is an excellent chance that a society that allowed murder never lasted long enough for us to have a historical record of their existence. You ask if there was a time of absurd and irrationality: I think this depends on what you are trying to get at with absurd and irrationality. I have cats, are my cats absurd or irrational. Sometimes I am convinced they are with how they behave--one of my cats hates all the classic novels we have. He leaves every other book alone, but for some reason, the bookshelf with classic novels he attacks. He pulls the books off of the shelf and tries to shred them...is this irrational and absurd? Perhaps, or perhaps there is a smell that those books have that tells him he should do what he does...I don't know. I believe there was a time before rational thought for humans, a time when we were more animal like that modern human like. A time before language and a time after language...I think you need to consider the power of language--what happens when you can't communicate with others? How can you have laws if you can't communicate? The history of language is also the history of rational and logical thought--before language, society could not exist as we know it today. The beginning of language and especially written language is well documented in history and is the basis of law. For example, we could not have the Bible w/o language. Do you propose that there was never a time before language?Then what you consider irrational I would consider instinct. What I mean is my cat behaves that way because it is his instinct. Before language and laws, I believe humans were instinctual creatures. With language came thought and with thought came laws."Could you please explain why murder is wrong? You state laws come from human desires. In other words, morality comes from human preference and personal taste. What if it is my desire that no one in my tribe exists except for me? What if it makes me happy to murder people? On what basis are you going to object to that? Is it right if I murder you or someone you love? If you say yes, then you have just admitted that there is a standard OUTSIDE of us that we should obey and follow. If you say no, then I can murder you or anyone else, and no one is able to object."I may have stated laws come from human desire and if I did I would think I was only referring to some laws...for example, jaywalking would be a law one could argue is of human desire. But that is secondary to this discussion--I think the laws you are referring to come from humans desire to succeed / protect life. If you desire no one in your tribe to exist but you, then your tribe to will stop existing at your death. If you desire to kill everyone in your tribe and they let you, then they allowed you to become extinct and that has potentially happened at some point in time.But the basis for murder being wrong is because the first goal of all life is to continue living. This applies to humans, fish, and rats...so murder is intuitively conter productive to that goal. That would be my basis of why murder is wrong. Link to post Share on other sites
natewood3 0 Posted March 16, 2006 Author Share Posted March 16, 2006 If I respond to every thing you said, we would be here all night just reading a post or two, so I am gonna try to summarize.You say we agree for the most part as to what sin and evil is. However, I think we totally disagree. I believe that anything we do, think, or say, that goes against God's absolute, divine revelation is sinful and evil. You do NOT believe that, because you had admitted you do not accept a absolute standard of right and wrong. The Bible is able to answer all questions concerning morality I believe, either directly or indirectly.I don't agree still that faith is simply believing something that cannot be proven. Are you saying there is no evidence, for example, that Jesus Christ lived and died? I believe that by faith, yet I believe it is also a historical fact. Once again, faith is not a blind leap in the dark. I would challenge you to show that to me from the Bible.I did not ask if you could "predict the future." I simply asked, do you believe in the uniformity of nature? Will the future be like the past? I think there is a difference. You say that 2+2+=4 may not always be true. On what basis do you trust ANYTHING to be true? How do you know that anything you believe is actually true?You also basically told me that morality is conventional, subjective, changing, and not universal. In other words, some societies call "evil" good and others call "good" evil. Morality is simply based upon human preference and personal taste. If that is the case, how do you even have the right to say that something is good or evil, such as the molestation of a child? The fact that you feel angered by the act shows that you do not believe ANYONE should do such a thing, but yet you tell me that morality is subjective and based on personal preference. I see a huge contradiction here. However, you have also told me that it is rational to be irrational, that it is fine to contradict yourself, that is ok to be absurd and incoherent. However, you seemingly criticized faith for believing things that are "irrational" or "not able to be proven." How do you even know what "rationality" or "logical thinking" is? Again, you're going to have to tell me that it is based on what YOU think it is. If I think it is perfectly rational to affirm and deny the same thing at the same time, apparently your worldview somehow says that is perfectly rational.You are skeptical of the Bible's reliability. Have you studied the original texts or studied the historical reliability of the Bible? Do you know how many manuscripts we possess of the Bible? Do you know how accurate those manuscripts are? I simply think you are coming with a presupposition that the Bible cannot be reliable, therefore, the Bible is not reliable. You assume that God cannot preserve His Word to humans. You do not understand the Biblical concept of inspiration either, that God moved upon the apostles and Biblical writers and they wrote what they were "inspired" to write. The Scriptures are exactly what God intended in their original autograph, yet God is also in control of all things and directs all things. Hence, the Biblical portrait is that God is able to inspire the Biblical text and preserve that same text so that the text God wants us to have is the text that we have.You say you standard of morality is your "gut feeling." Where does this gut feeling come from? Why do you believe this gut feeling is able to provide a standard by which you judge all things? What if my gut feeling is completely the opposite and in complete contradiction to yours? How do you know that your gut feeling is reliable? Why should your "gut feeling" be the sole determination of what is right and wrong? You are simply arbitrary in your choosing of a standard. I do not believe you can justify your use of "gut feeling" to determine right and wrong. You seem to think that since something is not explicitly in the Bible, then the Bible has no answer. However, that is not the case. It answers either directly or indirectly. An indirect answer is no less authoritative than a direct. The Bible does not only give us commands, but it gives us principles that we live all of live by.You say you do not believe in absolutes. How do you know that there are not absolutes? Do you know this absolutely? Relativism simply leads to skepticism, because you in the end cannot know anything is true for certain. It simply leads to absurdity and skepticism when you deny that there are universal laws of logic and morality. For you to deny absolute values and standards is to deny truth itself, because truth then becomes relative. How can a "truth" be relative? If it is really the truth, then it cannot possibly be false, yet your "truths" may become false in the future, which means that they were not truths in the first place. If morality and logic is simply subjective, then we would be free to believe and maintain whatever we liked, unconstrained by evidence, logic, or revelation (which is what you have already basically said). Hence, your denial of absolutes leads you to absurdity and meaninglessness. To say that morality and logic is simply subjective is self-contradictory, because you are telling me that we have an objective moral obligation to agree with subjectivism, while telling me that no one has a objective moral obligation to do anything.You say you cannot think of a single universal law that has existed in all societies and cultures, which is because you already presuppose that laws come from personal preferences and human opinion and that they are not absolute.You also speak of the power of language. Language has absolute no meaning if there are not universal logical laws of thought that all people must abide by. If we can be irrational, then there can be no communication. Language is meaningless without the laws of logic, yet everyone communicates with one another using language, which presupposes the laws of logic. Where does logic come from? You are simply telling me that morality came from non-morality, and that intelligibility came from unintelligibility. Are you not the same person who said criticised "faith"? You have absolute no evidence that these things are true. You simply accept them by faith. I at least have a written text that explains how the world came to be; all you can do is speculate and speculate and theorize. To me, that is irrational.Your last statements simply placed on the level of all other animals. We are simply instinctual animals, just a little more advanced. How would we know that survival is the first goal of all creatures? What about those missionaries who have given their lives for the sake of the Gospel, who went to foreign countries, knowing they would be killed if they preached the Word of God? Survival was not their first goal... Link to post Share on other sites
FloatingHome 0 Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Wait--when did I criticize faith? I only provided a definition of faith that is pretty universal--let me provide references:Dictionary.com defines faith as: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.Perhaps my shortening logical proof to logic has created a problem, but that is definately what I was referring to. Please help me understand how / where I criticized faith--I tried very hard to do the opposite.I don't think you interpret what I am saying regarding evil correctly--my personal beliefs happen to correspond pretty well with the writings in the Bible, so I do think you and I probably have a similar definition of what evil is. The fact that I arrive at the same conclusions using a different method, does not in itself, mean we disagree. The only difference is that I can imagine a time and place where doing something counter to the teachings in the Bible may happen to be the correct decision, where I do not believe that could ever be the case for you.Regarding faith, you state: "I don't agree still that faith is simply believing something that cannot be proven. Are you saying there is no evidence, for example, that Jesus Christ lived and died? I believe that by faith, yet I believe it is also a historical fact. Once again, faith is not a blind leap in the dark. I would challenge you to show that to me from the Bible."No I do not question Jesus lived. Very few people question whether he lived, though I am sure some do. However, I accept on FAITH, that he was the son of God. There is no way you can logically prove this to be true. If you believe it as I do, then you have faith. Otherwise, prove to me that he is the son of God--show me a way to understand this logically?Okay--first, please show me an example of where I am critical of faith. Here are the comments I have made regarding faith:1. don't believe that faith is believing contridictory things per se, yet it is believing something that can not be proved to the satisfaction of everyone2. obviously you have faith and I am not trying to dis-prove your faith. I am trying to show the struggle for those of us wrestling with our own faith vs. our own logical biases in viewing the world.Please show me a statement where I was critical of someone with faith--if you read what I am saying I am talking very personally about my personal wrestle with faith, about the problem of faith vs. logic, and how it relates to the person and society at large.Yet, you seem to think that this is an attack on you. However, throughout this whole discussion I have tried to answer every question you have provided with thought--these answers are a personal belief, not a universal. That fact that you choose to believe differently doesn't change my beliefs, nor does it mean one of us is right or wrong.However, you believe that stating "The Bible is able to answer all questions concerning morality I believe, either directly or indirectly" is enough evidence to one way of thinking. Yet you fail to show how this works with any examples or questions I have posed to you.For example, what happens to every soul that existed before Jesus--can you go to heaven or not. What answer does the Bible give you? Instead of saying you have a guide, show how that guide is applied to real life decisions--answer some of the tough questions I presented to you. This is real dilemma I personally have--apparently you do not. I would like to learn to not have this dilemma.Yes, I do question the Bible reliability. Let me ask you a simple question--what version of the Bible is correct? King James? Or does one have to read it in Hebrew? What about only reading it in the original Greek? Did every translator that ever worked with Bible have the authority of God to decide how a word should be translated? As I showed with the example of the blue sky and Chinese language, translations are never simple. There are many interpretations that have to be made by the translator--this is why we have multiple versions of the Bible. Is there one correct one? How do you decide which one is correct?As for who controls my gut reaction--that is controlled, as I said, through my religious morals, family values, and societal morals. If you agree with me that each individual has a direct communication with God, which you previously did, than how can you argue this is random--during tough decisions God will help guide me. How is this contridictory to Bible or to your belief?Again--my gut feeling is not the sole determination for right and wrong for everyone. It is my personal determination for right and wrong. I never said nor even implied that you should live by my gut feeling. That is between you and God, just as my determination of right and wrong is between God am me.I don't know there are no absolutes, just as I don't know if there are absolutes. I do know that if one believes there are no absolutes it is a trap. Why is it so difficult to understand this--I am not saying I don't believe in things, but what I believe in can change based on the knowledge and information I have--is this not the same for you? Do you still believe in the same things now as you did when you were two?What if God comes to earth again and clarifies a message that you believe is an absoulute--then it was not an absolute, was it? By declaring a single absolute you shut out the possibility that anything can ever change.Regarding truth being relative, I was answering a question by you. You asked specifically how I knew 2+2=4 will always be true. I can't know that--can you? I can make an educated quess that it will always be true and can therefore assume it is true--but I can't see the future to know it will always be true...Using the Bible--God said and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth in the Old Testament. Jesus said to turn the other cheek. Hence, if you believe everything is absolute how do you deal with this change? If you believe that nothing can change, then Jesus would not have been able to change the original proclamation by God. But he did. How then do you believe that the Bible is absolute and never changing?Provide me with a single universal law that has applied to all creatures and beings on the planet...I can think of many that Christians believe, or Buddhists believe, but not any that apply across all people, races, creatures, and life. If you can please share it with me. A single universal law would imply that every living thing must follow and obey it--show me one. Stop rationalizing around it and provide an example--the closest I could come was murder.You have the order of language and logic backwords--logic can not and did not exist with out language. Just like a chimpanzee who uses a branch to get ants is not using logic, it is using a system it has observed to be effective for a task. Again--provide me an example of a universal logical law that all people abide to without language. It is impossible...Language allows universal laws to exist, not the other way. Language gave humans the ability to make sense of the world, and more importantly, to pass that knowledge on the the next person so it did not have to be relearned. Can you imagine what we would have to learn just to survive with out language? There is no way we would be having this conversation, or even a discussion about God without language--there would be no way to communicate these ideas. Again, you are taking an answer to a very specific question out of context to make your argument for the missionaries. You asked where did laws come from...not where they have evolved to. In modern times we have the ability to choose to make decisions that put ourselves at risk like the missionaries do. However, if we had not evolved to a societal state that had an abundance of food, the missionaries would not have the ability to make that choice--they would have to spend their time gatherin food and water for survival. Ultimately, I was trying to answer your questions to discuss this subject rationally and that was what we were doing. Yet your last post indicates that you are unwilling to do this anymore. I am not looking for a fight or debate, but rather a discussion that we both find interesting and informative. If this is no longer the case, we should stop. Link to post Share on other sites
natewood3 0 Posted March 17, 2006 Author Share Posted March 17, 2006 We have a few problems.First, I think we both have misunderstood things that have been said or implied. I apologize for that. Secondly, our posts have become way to broad to cover all of these questions that each of us are asking. I think you have done well answering alot of these, but I have hard time, because I could spend a paragraph or two on each, and it would be extremely long. You or no one else probably wants to read these extremely long posts. Do you have some type of messenger, like MSN? I would download Yahoo and AOL if you have either, because we have gotten way off topic of the problem of evil, which is what I intended to discuss. If you have a messenger, tell me because I would love to answer all the questsions (if I can) that you have raised concerning the Bible, but I don't think this is the thread to do it in. If you don't have a messenger, I will give you my email or you can private message me yours, either way.We can continue to discuss the problem of evil, if you like. I don't think that evil is a problem. To say:1. God is all-powerful.2. God is loving and good.3. Evil exists.These premises do NOT lead us to believe that God does not exist. I would say:4. God has good and loving purposes for the existence of evil.That is just a natural conclusion as you can get. The problem for most non-Christians is that they believe things are "evil," yet they have absolutely no standard by which they can judge a thing to be good or evil. Hence, the problem of evil is a problem for the unbelieving worldview, not the Christian worldview. The Christian worldview has an ultimate standard by which we judge all things, namely, the Bible, which is the divine revelation of God. It is no problem for me to say, "That is evil" because I have a ultimate standard to which I appeal. I believe the Bible is the Word of God. God says X is evil. Hence, X is evil. If an unbeliever does have a standard, it is arbitrary or inconsistent with their worldview. Link to post Share on other sites
Mattnxtc 0 Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 We have a few problems.First, I think we both have misunderstood things that have been said or implied. I apologize for that. Secondly, our posts have become way to broad to cover all of these questions that each of us are asking. I think you have done well answering alot of these, but I have hard time, because I could spend a paragraph or two on each, and it would be extremely long. You or no one else probably wants to read these extremely long posts. Do you have some type of messenger, like MSN? I would download Yahoo and AOL if you have either, because we have gotten way off topic of the problem of evil, which is what I intended to discuss. If you have a messenger, tell me because I would love to answer all the questsions (if I can) that you have raised concerning the Bible, but I don't think this is the thread to do it in. If you don't have a messenger, I will give you my email or you can private message me yours, either way.We can continue to discuss the problem of evil, if you like. I don't think that evil is a problem. To say:1. God is all-powerful.2. God is loving and good.3. Evil exists.These premises do NOT lead us to believe that God does not exist. I would say:4. God has good and loving purposes for the existence of evil.That is just a natural conclusion as you can get. The problem for most non-Christians is that they believe things are "evil," yet they have absolutely no standard by which they can judge a thing to be good or evil. Hence, the problem of evil is a problem for the unbelieving worldview, not the Christian worldview. The Christian worldview has an ultimate standard by which we judge all things, namely, the Bible, which is the divine revelation of God. It is no problem for me to say, "That is evil" because I have a ultimate standard to which I appeal. I believe the Bible is the Word of God. God says X is evil. Hence, X is evil. If an unbeliever does have a standard, it is arbitrary or inconsistent with their worldview.I like the use of logic but I have one thing i would like to add to your statements...If we are going to use the premise that evil exists..then we also need to have the premise that God is just since you could say that b/c evil exists God isnt all powerful....just a thought..yalls discussion is great to read Link to post Share on other sites
natewood3 0 Posted March 17, 2006 Author Share Posted March 17, 2006 I like the use of logic but I have one thing i would like to add to your statements...If we are going to use the premise that evil exists..then we also need to have the premise that God is just since you could say that b/c evil exists God isnt all powerful....just a thought..yalls discussion is great to readI think the conclusion I gave implies that God is all-powerful. I could have possibly reworded to say that "Therefore, God sovereignly ordains that evil exists for good and loving purposes." Link to post Share on other sites
FloatingHome 0 Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 I would also like to apologize for my last post--I did not mean it to come off so confrontational--I have enjoyed this conversation and think we can both benefit from continuing it.I was trying to make two points and based on your most recent comment, I will continue to try to show where I think our beliefs are slightly different--I am not trying to show whether God exists or not, just how our thinking on this subject is different...First, I don't disagree with your first three statements. I disagree with your conclusion being the only logical conclusion. Your conclusion is the essence of faith, rather than pure logic, in my opinion. If we accept your statements:1. God is all-powerful.2. God is loving and good.3. Evil exists.Then the question becomes why did God allow evil if he could have prevented it. Based on God being all-powerful and all good as you say, one is left trying to understand why evil exists.You conclude that "God has a good and loving purpose for the existence of evil". Wouldn't this imply that the existence of evil is then good. If God's purpose for evil is good, then logically, evil is good. Just using logic, this doesn't make much sense. One has to believe that God has a purpose that one can not understand, prove or show--that, is faith. Faith is also what God asks for humans to put into him, so the fact that logically it does not work out to a conclusion is not an attach on a belief, but it is an attack the human ability to logically understand all of the powers and workings of God.Where you and I diverge in our thinking, is I am comfortable with understanding God can not exist logically. I have no issue believing in God with out proof, but rather because I feel it is the right decision to make...From what I have read of your position, this seems to be a point of conflict between our belief structures. I am not being critical of your belief and I hope this did not come off that way, I am just trying to pinpoint where our thoughts differ--please let me know your thoughts on this.The second point of difference is your final paragraph. I personally have given as much thought to the question of thought and religious structures across the world. I have studied the writings of Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Daoism, Ratafarianism. and Confucianism. The one thing that struck me about all of these belief systems is that the core values are very similar across them. All of these belief systems attemp to describe the right way for one to live.When you say "The problem for most non-Christians is that they believe things are "evil," yet they have absolutely no standard by which they can judge a thing to be good or evil. Hence, the problem of evil is a problem for the unbelieving worldview, not the Christian worldview." I believe you are very mistaken. There are more non-Christian religious people in the world, than Christian. These people have found a different religious and moral code to live by. It is not that if a non-believer "does have a standard, it is arbitrary or inconsistent with their worldview." Quite the contrary, a non-Christian has another standard, a different standard, but not an arbitrary standard. If anything, Christianity has the most relaxed standards of the religions I mention. All a Christian has to do to be accepted into heaven is accept Jesus and confess his/her sins. Buddhists have a much more difficult path to travel to reach enlightenment.The majority of Christians I have met believe that Christianity is the only true religion, and view these other religions as fruadulent or wrong. This has never worked for me, for some reason I can not accept that the majority of human people are wrong. No religion has 50% of the population as followers, so if any single religion is the only one, then it would imply that the majority of humans must be incorrect.I choose to believe that all religions are connected. God has chosen to allow each individual to find God in their own way. The only passage in the Bible that I know of provides even the slightest problem is one of the commandments--"Thou shalt not worship an idol other than Me" is how I think it goes. After much thought I have concluded that commandments are intended for the individual, not for the individual to apply to another individual. So, in order for me to live up to this commandment, I can not choose to worship an idol other than God, since that is how God has come to me. The same as a Buddhist would not be allowed to worship another God, since that is how God has come to him/her. Therefore, religion is a very personal relationship between God and self, not a doctrine to be shouted out to everyone else in the world. The way religion should be passed around the world is by example...we all know the expression talk is cheap. Well, talk of being religious with the goal of conversion is the cheapest talk of all. Conversion should be handled because of how you live your life, rather than how you talk about religion. Realizing we are having a discussion about religion, I also try to be very careful not to judge or criticize those who believe differently. Link to post Share on other sites
Mattnxtc 0 Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 A few things I want to add that I saw while reading. First off it is great to see people having great intellectual conversations about this. All a Christian has to do to be accepted into heaven is accept Jesus and confess his/her sinsI do have a problem with this statement. I hear variations of this all the time. I had a teacher say its along the lines of "fake it till you make it" Meaning you say your a christian until you actually do become one. Unfortunately this isnt the case. Many people will "confess" to be christians yet on the day of judgement Jesus will say "I never knew you". We can see christians based on their fruits. Some for example (Guy named Tilton...farting preacher on ebaums) are in the business of making money at peoples expense. Its a complete struggle to be a christian to not just freely give into sin. 1. God is all-powerful.2. God is loving and good.3. Evil exists.Then the question becomes why did God allow evil if he could have prevented it. Based on God being all-powerful and all good as you say, one is left trying to understand why evil exists.You conclude that "God has a good and loving purpose for the existence of evil". Wouldn't this imply that the existence of evil is then good. If God's purpose for evil is good, then logically, evil is good. Just using logic, this doesn't make much sense. One has to believe that God has a purpose that one can not understand, prove or show--that, is faith. Faith is also what God asks for humans to put into him, so the fact that logically it does not work out to a conclusion is not an attach on a belief, but it is an attack the human ability to logically understand all of the powers and workings of God.I struggle with this too. If I may make a slight adjustment I think we can change the logical steps1. God is all-powerful2. God is loving and just3. Evil exist in opposition to GodThe I think we could conclude that God will seperate the good from the evilNot perfect i know...I still dont have a whole lot of experience in forming the logical sequences..but this should be close. Let me know what yall think. Philosophy is something I am tryin to learn on my own since it isnt my major Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now