Observations

My biggest problem with employing ‘The Problem of Evil’ argument against the existence of God is that it doesn’t go far enough. For example, why do we as humans uniquely define any event or action as ‘evil’? How do we know what evil is? Can we even consider anything evil if there isn’t some corresponding objective idea of what is good? I think deeply considering any of these questions always lead us back to the necessity of God’s existence.

Advertisements

69 Responses to Observations

  1. Grant says:

    There is no “Problem of evil” argument against the existence of God. If someone argues that God does not exist because He allows evil, that person is a moron.

  2. 1. Circular. You’re claiming to know objective evil exist and that therefore provides evidence for God, but you can only assert that objective evil exists if you first presume the existence of an ultimate object/arbitrator.

    2.

    Can we even consider anything evil if there isn’t some corresponding objective idea of what is good?

    The inverse of this must also be true: if evil requires good, then good requires evil. Then, if God is good, evil has always existed. Since nothing is eternal but God, evil must be a property of God. (It cannot exist independently and be eternal.) Good job, you just defined God as having evil, a property that is in conflict with his moral perfection.

  3. Grant says:

    Michael .. you really, really need to go away and think things through a bit better.

    It is not circular to respond to a challenge called the problem of evil with the assumption that God is who He says He is. The challenge makes that assumption in the first place. That’s why it’s a useless argument against the existence of God.

    And the inverse need not also be true. You just made that up.

  4. I’m not arguing platitudes with you.

  5. Grant says:

    You’re not much good at arguing anything, let alone platitudes.

  6. jackhudson says:

    1. Circular. You’re claiming to know objective evil exist and that therefore provides evidence for God, but you can only assert that objective evil exists if you first presume the existence of an ultimate object/arbitrator.

    Grant referred to this but I will say it a bit more explicitly; the ‘problem of evil’ as laid out by atheists (not Christians) assumes that evil exists; this is only true if we can objectively define evil. We can only do this if we can objectively define something as good – which assumes there is an objective source or standard of good. That basically requires the existence of God.

    2. Can we even consider anything evil if there isn’t some corresponding objective idea of what is good?

    Exactly.

    The inverse of this must also be true: if evil requires good, then good requires evil. Then, if God is good, evil has always existed. Since nothing is eternal but God, evil must be a property of God. (It cannot exist independently and be eternal.) Good job, you just defined God as having evil, a property that is in conflict with his moral perfection.

    No, good does not require evil, just as light doesn’t require darkness, and heat doesn’t require cold. Evil is the absence of good, or more particularly, the absence of the influence of God, or failure to conform to His nature or commands. So as your basic premise is wrong, none of the rest follows.

  7. Grant referred to this but I will say it a bit more explicitly; the ‘problem of evil’ as laid out by atheists (not Christians) assumes that evil exists; this is only true if we can objectively define evil. We can only do this if we can objectively define something as good – which assumes there is an objective source or standard of good. That basically requires the existence of God.

    It’s an if/then scenario. If God exists and if there is therefore objective evil, then there are conflicts with the properties of God and the existence of evil. That is, if we agree (even if only hypothetically) that both God and evil exist and we agree that the properties of God dictate a lack of evil within him, we have to answer to the evil that exists within the world.

    But even if your argument had any validity, you’re picking on the wrong target. The whole scenario first assumes the existence of God.

    Exactly.

    Good job. I was directly quoting you.

    No, good does not require evil, just as light doesn’t require darkness, and heat doesn’t require cold. Evil is the absence of good, or more particularly, the absence of the influence of God, or failure to conform to His nature or commands. So as your basic premise is wrong, none of the rest follows.

    Then you’re back to God necessarily being the creator of evil or the creator of the potential of evil. Since he is God, he must have known evil would result from his actions. This is in conflict with the premise that God desires the elimination of evil; he does not desire its creation.

  8. Grant says:

    Hello? Mr. Dense? Is that you? Arguing that God created evil is no argument that God does not exist.

    Try to think before you put your feet in your mouth. :up:

  9. If your sort of point was valid, you wouldn’t even be picking up on the first issue: God. If it’s valid to say that using the idea of objective evil in an argument assumes God, then it’s valid to say using the idea of, ah-hem, God in an argument assumes God. You’re still wrong to make an issue of this, but you’re even wrong in your wrongness.

    But if it helps you get through remedial philosophy 020, take it this way. If we agree that suffering is evil – it doesn’t matter why we agree; it merely matters that we agree – and if God desires the elimination of suffering, then the existence of suffering is a problem.

  10. Grant says:

    You’re too stupid to talk to. :wave:

  11. Justin says:

    Michael,

    The rebuttle to the “Problem of Evil” does not assume God, it argues toward God as the conclusion. The rebuttal really shows that the problem of evil is self-refuting.

    If you assume there is evil, then we must assume there is good. If we assume there is good and evil, then you have to have a set of rules or standards by which to differentiate between the two. If you posit a moral law, then there must be a moral lawgiver, for the moral law is a personal law, in the sense that it only applies to people (not that it is opinion). If the moral law only applies to people, then there has to be a personal being who gave the moral law. We call that personal being God, and His nature is moral, and from His nature eminates the moral law, as well as all of the laws of logic, mathematics, physics, etc.

  12. We’re saying if God exists and he has certain properties, then there is a problem of evil. Some of those properties are that he is good, that he sets up what is good, and that what he decides is evil actually is evil. From there we can say – according to the standards we’ve put forth – that X is evil by the law of God, or to be specific, say, murder is evil. That is, we’re saying the given properties of God means murder is evil and he therefore desires the elimination of murder. This creates a problem since murder does, in fact, exist.

    Of course, everyone can just keep avoiding the actual problem if they want.

  13. jackhudson says:

    I don’t think anyone is avoiding the problem; I think it is simply not the problem you think it is. It doesn’t call into question God’s existence per se, but it does cause us to question one aspect of God’s nature, namely his omnipotence.

    And I think that is where skeptics misunderstand – omnipotence doesn’t mean that anything can be done, it means anything that is possible can be done by God; there exist circumstances that are by their very nature inherently impossible and thus simply can’t happen. It appears that giving creatures free will and eliminating the possibility of evil is one of those inherently impossible realities – and thus does nothing to diminish either God’s goodness or his omnipotence.

  14. I don’t think anyone is avoiding the problem; I think it is simply not the problem you think it is. It doesn’t call into question God’s existence per se, but it does cause us to question one aspect of God’s nature, namely his omnipotence.

    I agree with you in part. I believe I made a similar point in my post (or somewhere in here); it doesn’t disprove God. I wouldn’t be specific about any one aspect of God’s nature, however, because I think we could point to different places (his moral perfection, for instance).

    But yes, this isn’t about disproving God. It’s about showing that he cannot exist with a certain set of properties.

    It appears that giving creatures free will and eliminating the possibility of evil is one of those inherently impossible realities – and thus does nothing to diminish either God’s goodness or his omnipotence.

    Nothing about God’s nature dictates that free will must exist among humans.

  15. jackhudson says:

    Nothing about God’s nature dictates that free will must exist among humans.

    If it is God’s desire that free willed creatures respond freely to having a relationship with their Creator, then that desire dictates that the possibility of evil exists.

  16. Acting in a way that necessarily creates evil is a violation of the premise that God is morally perfect. Morally perfect beings do not create evil, whether it be directly or ‘merely’ the potential of it.

  17. jackhudson says:

    It doesn’t ‘neccesarily create evil’, it neccesarily allows the possibility of evil.

  18. That remains a violation.

  19. Grant says:

    Perhaps people are prepared to go to the source to found their arguments. What scriptures are people using to say God is “omni” something?

  20. jackhudson says:

    That remains a violation.

    On what basis does that ‘remain a violation’? If I lend someone $100 and they spend it on drugs, is my morality tarnished?

  21. If that person said, “Jack, can I have $100 for drugs?” and you gave it to him, yes. You would know with high certainty where your money was going. Of course, with God we need not the qualifier “high”.

  22. jackhudson says:

    Certainly; but God didn’t give us free will to do evil, we choose to.

  23. Justin says:

    “Acting in a way that necessarily creates evil is a violation of the premise that God is morally perfect. Morally perfect beings do not create evil, whether it be directly or ‘merely’ the potential of it.”

    Not so. This seems to be an attempt to attribute the actions of one free moral agent to another. If God wanted to create us so that we would choose to love him (free will creating the only meaningful type of love) then sure, the “choice” to do evil is available to us. Acting outside of the will of God would be evil, but since he gave us free will, it’s our responsibility and our choices that make evil manifest. Trying to blame God for man’s evil isn’t really logical, if we truly have free will.

  24. Certainly; but God didn’t give us free will to do evil, we choose to.

    Give a child scissors and it’s your fault when he cuts himself.

    Justin,

    Not so. This seems to be an attempt to attribute the actions of one free moral agent to another.

    God creates evil or its potential (whichever you prefer) by creating free will. That is his action and his responsibility.

    If God wanted to create us so that we would choose to love him (free will creating the only meaningful type of love)

    It is not a premise of God that he wants his creation to love him. Nor is it true that he wants that love to be meaningful. (Nor is it true that free will is necessary to make love meaningful to God.)

    Acting outside of the will of God would be evil, but since he gave us free will, it’s our responsibility and our choices that make evil manifest. Trying to blame God for man’s evil isn’t really logical, if we truly have free will.

    God knows humans will act outside his will. The premise that he is all-knowing dictates that. He has created agents that can be or cause evil, and he knows they will cause it. This violates the premise that he desires the elimination of evil, as well as the premise that he is morally perfect.

    Free will is not an answer to this Problem.

  25. Grant says:

    God did create evil or its potential (whichever you prefer) by creating free will. That is His action and His responsibility. But this is no argument against the existence of God.

    You really, reaaaally need go go have a good long, hard think about the arguments you get yourself into.

  26. jackhudson says:

    I think it is a bit of misunderstanding to even say God created evil as I don’t think evil is something, evil is the absence of a thing just as darkness is the absence of light. Evil in our case is the absence of God – God created the potential for His creature to choose to be apart from His influence.

    Which would be quite terrible if that were the whole story – but the purpose of Christianity is that it gives us the hope of good ultimately triumphing over evil, we can be restored to God.

    And while it may be the result of freedom is the possibility of evil, evil is not neccesarily the ultimate experience of humanity – indeed God has utilized the reality of evil to bring about the ultimate possible good.

    One description I like of this is Tolkien’s in The Silmarillion. God, or Ilúvatar in The Silmarillion sings the song of creation with all His angels, or Ainur. As he sings, one angelic being, Melkor (a Satanic figure) seeks to sow discord by singing his own song which is out harmony with the song of God . And yet Ilúvatar continually weaves the harmonies of Melkor back into the main song, so that it is no longer disharmonious, but a part of a bigger theme in the music. I think this is a beautiful picture of how God works with respect to evil; men do evil, and Satan sows evil in the world, but ultimately God redeems it all and ultimate good results. We see this most clearly at the crucifixion where the greatest evil in history becomes the greatest good with the resurrection.

  27. Grant says:

    Totally agree, Jack. But our nice little atheist cannot even understand that something being bad is no evidence against its existence.

    He has to get in the water before he can drown.

  28. Justin says:

    Give a child scissors and it’s your fault when he cuts himself.

    Perhaps, but we are not children. God gave us the metnal ability to learn right from wrong. We’re not innocent children, ergo your example is fatally flawed. It’s actually the atheists’ position that is wishful thinking, that somehow there is no responsibility for the evil we choose to do, or, that God is a great senile Grandfather in the sky, and if He exists, he will somehow grant atheists amnesty because of a lack of proof. On the contrary, God has granted us the wisdom to know right from wrong, and if God is just, then we will be held responsible for our choices.

    God creates evil or it’s potential…

    Yes, but giving someone free will does not make the actions of that free agent your responsibility. It is too ironic that the political left are often also religious atheists. Both have the desire to shirk responsibility and place it on others, and I could give you numerous examples if space permitted. It’s a mindset and a worldview that is backwards and destructive.

    It is not a premise of God that he wants his creation to love him. Nor is it true that he wants that love to be meaningful. Nor is it true that free will is necessary to make love meaningful to God.

    I’m sorry, but only this type of rubbish could come from an atheist. Have you heard of the Greatest Commandment? I can’t think of any more legitimate evidence that God wants you to love him than that. What is the greatest commandment? “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” Now that that is settled, it is simply a logical absurdity to state that God doesn’t really want that our love to be meaningful. And finally, yes, free will is indeed crucial to meaningful love. On earth, we don’t consider rape to be meaningful love. Nor would we consider the fact that I’ve programmed my computer to tell me it loves me “real love” either. Nor do we consider it real love when someone marries someone else for money. I think your last point also boils down to an obvious absurdity.

    God knows humans will act outside his will. The premise that he is all-knowing dictates that. He has created agents that can be or cause evil, and he knows they will cause it. This violates the premise that he desires the elimination of evil, as well as the premise that he is morally perfect.

    Again, some rather illogical, liberal thinking going on here. My mother desired, many times, that I clean my room growing up. But since I have free will, there were times when I would do so, and times when I wouldn’t. It was still her will (and a very clear will, too) that I clean my room, whether I chose to do so or not. So your premise is shown to be flawed here. Your last sentence demonstrates again the liberal mindset that we are not responsible for our own actions, which I reject as absurd and unlivable philosophy on its face.

  29. Grant says:

    Somebody throw that boy a life-jacket. 😀

  30. Perhaps, but we are not children. God gave us the metnal ability to learn right from wrong. We’re not innocent children, ergo your example is fatally flawed.

    No. You just don’t understand the analogy. Innocence has nothing to do with it.

    The point was that to create an environment where one knows there will be a bad outcome is to be responsible for that bad outcome. The big difference, of course, is that we can only be reasonably sure a child will cut himself. God knows evil will come from humans.

    It’s actually the atheists’ position that is wishful thinking, that somehow there is no responsibility for the evil we choose to do, or, that God is a great senile Grandfather in the sky, and if He exists, he will somehow grant atheists amnesty because of a lack of proof.

    Aside from this being a tremendous non-sequitur, you’ve confused atheism with nihilism. You’ve also implied that atheists have just-in-case theism. This makes no sense since an atheist is literally without theism. (It’s surprisingly common how few people can actually describe what atheism actually is.)

    On the contrary, God has granted us the wisdom to know right from wrong, and if God is just, then we will be held responsible for our choices.

    Just for being sure, you just don’t get the analogy. God knowingly created an environment of evil. Whatever responsibility we have for our choices, God has as much responsibility for his choice to create an evil environment.

    Yes, but…

    Okay. Thanks for the win.

    It is too ironic that the political left are often also religious atheists. Both have the desire to shirk responsibility and place it on others, and I could give you numerous examples if space permitted. It’s a mindset and a worldview that is backwards and destructive.

    Enough with the non-sequiturs.

    I’m sorry, but only this type of rubbish could come from an atheist. Have you heard of the Greatest Commandment? I can’t think of any more legitimate evidence that God wants you to love him than that.

    The premises of what it means to be God are not concerned with intricate theology. We’re talking about the concept of God and what basic properties are necessary for him to be God. He must be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all good. We cannot say he must also desire love from his creation because this assumes that the existence of humans is an intrinsic property of God. But that isn’t so; God is God with or without any special creations.

    Again, some rather illogical, liberal thinking going on here. My mother desired, many times, that I clean my room growing up. But since I have free will, there were times when I would do so, and times when I wouldn’t. It was still her will (and a very clear will, too) that I clean my room, whether I chose to do so or not. So your premise is shown to be flawed here.

    This is the worst analogy I’ve seen in a long, long time. Your mother isn’t God. She isn’t morally perfect and no one agrees that one of her properties is the desire of elimination of evil (or anything else); she’s human. She could grow up to desire anything and still be your mother; her parenthood is not dependent upon any particular, intrinsic desires. If other people are honest in this thread, they ought to be taking you to task for this glaring error in thought.

    Your last sentence demonstrates again the liberal mindset that we are not responsible for our own actions, which I reject as absurd and unlivable philosophy on its face.

    My last sentence was that invoking free will is not an answer to the Problem of Evil. That doesn’t tell you whether I accept free will, whether I think God exists, whether I think there is an answer to the Problem of Evil, what any part of my philosophy is, and it certainly doesn’t tell you that I think people aren’t responsible for their own actions. In fact, I’m not sure how you could have been so off the mark on this one: “Free will is not an answer to this Problem” could hardly be made more clear.

  31. jackhudson says:

    The point was that to create an environment where one knows there will be a bad outcome is to be responsible for that bad outcome. The big difference, of course, is that we can only be reasonably sure a child will cut himself. God knows evil will come from humans.

    Well, this seems to be where you are mainly off – if that were the end of the story, if there was only a bad outcome, you might have a point – but as the parable of the Prodigal Son illustrates, the story doesn’t end with the son completely destroyed – the son can return and be restored, and express true love and gratitude for his father – of the sort that was not possible if he never had the freedom to do evil to begin with.

  32. Grant says:

    Michael wants to accuse God of creating evil and ignore the fact that God sacrificed His only son to pay the price.

    What he has gotten himself is a large case of sour grapes.

  33. Justin says:

    Shirking responsibility has become a way of life in America, but it’s a backwards and destructive mindset.

    The point was that to create an environment where one knows there will be a bad outcome is to be responsible for that bad outcome. The big difference, of course, is that we can only be reasonably sure a child will cut himself. God knows evil will come from humans.

    My mom knew I wouldn’t clean my room when I was younger. She knew this before I was born, even. How does that make her responsible for my messy room? Is it her fault my room is messy simply because mom and dad bought the bed and the desk and the toys and the clothes and the house itself? It was still my actions, and my actions alone that messed up the room. Nobody else’s. Now, I can imagine a few ways my parents could have prevented me from messing up my room.

    1) They could have chosen not to have children.
    2) They could chain me up at all times, limiting my ability to mess up the room (essentially negating my free will).
    3) Provided me with no room at all.

    Hypothetically speaking, God could have not created us. He could have created us without free will. He could have created us with no interactions with each other. Ultimately, I don’t think that would have acheived His goal of creating creatures with free will who choose to love Him. God created us with free will and put us together. The logical conclusion is that God values the love of those who choose to love him above his will for evil to not exist, else He most likely would not have created us.

    I find this same line of reasoning is fatal to the strong Calvinist theology as well.

  34. Well, this seems to be where you are mainly off – if that were the end of the story, if there was only a bad outcome, you might have a point – but as the parable of the Prodigal Son illustrates, the story doesn’t end with the son completely destroyed – the son can return and be restored, and express true love and gratitude for his father – of the sort that was not possible if he never had the freedom to do evil to begin with.

    I didn’t know the Bible expounded on the notion that the ends justifies the means. This seems to be in conflict with your other notions that intention is what’s important. Do you have any passages you could cite that specifically clear this up?

    ow does that make her responsible for my messy room?

    She isn’t all-knowing and all-powerful. Get a new analogy.

  35. Grant says:

    This about sums up the atheist:

    The Blindness of Disobedience
    9 Pause and wonder!
    Blind yourselves and be blind!
    They are drunk, but not with wine;
    They stagger, but not with intoxicating drink.
    10 For the LORD has poured out on you
    The spirit of deep sleep,
    And has closed your eyes, namely, the prophets;
    And He has covered your heads, namely, the seers.
    11 The whole vision has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one who is literate, saying, “Read this, please.”
    And he says, “I cannot, for it is sealed.”
    12 Then the book is delivered to one who is illiterate, saying, “Read this, please.”
    And he says, “I am not literate.”
    13 Therefore the Lord said:

    “Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths
    And honor Me with their lips,
    But have removed their hearts far from Me,
    And their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men,
    14 Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvelous work
    Among this people,
    A marvelous work and a wonder;
    For the wisdom of their wise men shall perish,
    And the understanding of their prudent men shall be hidden.”
    15 Woe to those who seek deep to hide their counsel far from the LORD,
    And their works are in the dark;
    They say, “Who sees us?” and, “Who knows us?”
    16 Surely you have things turned around!
    Shall the potter be esteemed as the clay;
    For shall the thing made say of him who made it,
    “He did not make me”?

    Or shall the thing formed say of him who formed it,
    “He has no understanding”?

    Which is all like, using the very good analogy, the son saying to the mother, “You have no say over me. You did not bear me.”

  36. jackhudson says:

    I didn’t know the Bible expounded on the notion that the ends justifies the means. This seems to be in conflict with your other notions that intention is what’s important. Do you have any passages you could cite that specifically clear this up?

    Not as a means to an end, but rather that the sum total of our experience isn’t necessarily evil, but gloriously good – and so worth suffering the temporary experience of evil. As Paul says in his second letter to the Corinthians:

    Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all.

  37. That makes no sense. It is not a property of God that he thinks evil is okay in some circumstances.

  38. jackhudson says:

    That makes no sense. It is not a property of God that he thinks evil is okay in some circumstances.

    Well that is a convoluted way to put it, but obviously God thinks the possibility of evil doesn’t negate the good that will eventually results from existence and freedom.

  39. That’s a virtue out of necessity and it doesn’t say anything of the Problem of Evil.

  40. jackhudson says:

    Sure it does; the is why the problem of evil isn’t ultimately a problem. It’s only a problem if you assume our current experience is all there is.

  41. Justin says:

    It seems Michael wants to have his cake and eat it, too. In my example, my mother clearly knew that children don’t clean their rooms, and my mother clearly had the power to force me to clean my room, thus giving her the analogous powers of omnipotence and omniscience. My analogy stands.

    And free will, by definition, means that God has given us the power and responsibility of our own actions.

    To say that we have free will and that God has the power to prevent us from committing evil acts is logically equivalent to demanding God draw a square circle. Or asking if God can microwave a burrito so hot he can’t eat it. It’s a self contradiction, Michael. Your demands on God are logically self-contradictory.

  42. Grant says:

    Justin, you’re awesome. 🙂

  43. Justin says:

    Thanks Grant, you’re too kind. I certainly don’t rise to the level of awesome! If you want awesome, William Lane Craig or Ravi Zacharias come to mind!

  44. Grant says:

    Where do they hang out? Do they have a newsletter? 😀

  45. Justin says:

    Grant, you can google them and they each have web sites. I think Ravi’s is RZIM and William Lane Craig’s site is Reasonable Faith.

    Both have many videos on you tube as well that are well worth the time. That’s where I first ran across them.

  46. jackhudson says:

    Yeah, William Lane Craig’s site reasonablefaith.org is rich with content – I am actually going to a conference in Nov. where he, Alvin Platinga, Gary Habermas and a number of others are going to be speaking on apologetics mainly from a philosophical perspective.

  47. Justin says:

    Man, I’m jealous Jack! Plantinga and Habermas are great, too.

  48. jackhudson says:

    Hey, spots are still available. 🙂 Check out the speaker schedule:

    http://www.epsapologetics.com/sessions/sessions.asp

  49. Justin says:

    Alas, with a 6 month old son, I think I will pray for a video version to be available for purchase!

  50. jackhudson says:

    Ah, I remember those days well. Your first?

  51. Justin says:

    Yes! He’s so much fun. He is just starting to learn to crawl. He reaches for everything! We’re really blessed. He smiles all the time and likes peekaboo.

  52. jackhudson says:

    I miss those days – my youngest is eleven. Oh well, eventually there will be grandkids.

  53. Grant says:

    Still waiting for number one to materialise … 🙂

  54. jackhudson says:

    By Spontaneous Generation?

  55. It seems Michael wants to have his cake and eat it, too. In my example, my mother clearly knew that children don’t clean their rooms, and my mother clearly had the power to force me to clean my room, thus giving her the analogous powers of omnipotence and omniscience. My analogy stands.

    Then you have poor definitions of omnipotence and omniscience.

    And free will, by definition, means that God has given us the power and responsibility of our own actions.

    I give a child scissors. He has free will. It’s his fault if he gets cut.

    To say that we have free will and that God has the power to prevent us from committing evil acts is logically equivalent to demanding God draw a square circle.

    No. I did not say that.

    God is not required to give us free will in the first place. He is choosing to give it to us. That choice creates an environment which 1) allows for evil and 2) he knows will result in evil.

  56. jackhudson says:

    God is not required to give us free will in the first place. He is choosing to give it to us. That choice creates an environment which 1) allows for evil and 2) he knows will result in evil.

    Actually, he is choosing to give us existence, and an existence whereby we can choose to be in a loving relationship with our creator or not. The only way for that to be possible is for us to have free will, and by neccesity the ability to live without God, which is the what evil truly is.

  57. Grant says:

    @Jack. You mean there’s something I can do about it!!??

    😀

  58. jackhudson says:

    Well I have found causing babies to materialize is relatively easy – it’s everything that follows that requires a lot of work. Of course my wife did most of the preliminary work. 🙂

  59. Grant says:

    Wives are good. 🙂

  60. jackhudson says:

    They are, I am very thankful for mine. I am certain I wouldn’t be the productive person I am without her.

  61. Actually, he is choosing to give us existence, and an existence whereby we can choose to be in a loving relationship with our creator or not. The only way for that to be possible is for us to have free will, and by neccesity the ability to live without God, which is the what evil truly is.

    I didn’t know God was an advocate of Double Effect.

    If it is evil to be without God, then being in evil is presumably as evil as it gets. I’m not sure you want to argue that God chooses to ultimately put people in inherently evil places (i.e., any place completely void of God).

  62. jackhudson says:

    God doesn’t choose to do so, people choose to do so.

  63. My last post should have read “…then being in HELL is presumably…”

  64. jackhudson says:

    Same response applies.

  65. God’s hands are not somehow magically tied in a way that forces him to torment souls for eternity.

  66. jackhudson says:

    Well that is the whole point – if it is neccesary for creatures to freely choose that they be able to choose an existence without God, then in effect His hands are tied (by logical neccesity, not magic) if He chooses to create free-willed creatures.

  67. Okay. Your God thinks it’s a moral good for people to go to Hell for eternity.

  68. jackhudson says:

    Okay. Your God thinks it’s a moral good for people to go to Hell for eternity.

    No, God thinks it’s horrible; it is people who choose separation from God over a relationship with Him.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: