• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Talking Religion...

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Since we've somehow got onto discussing favorite hymns, the attached is a link to the words of one of my favorites - St. Patrick's Breastplate. It's unique in that its sixth verse is in another tune entirely from the first five - and then the seventh verse returns to the initial tune! Words and midi sound here:

Oremus Hymnal: I bind unto myself today

Better sound of the instrumental can be found here, though:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcaffGTv7xQ"]YouTube - I Bind Unto Myself Today (St. Patrick's Breastplate) VIRTUAL CHURCH[/ame]http://video.google.com/videosearch...nt+patrick's+breastplate&hl=en&emb=0&start=10
 
Upvote 0
Can a religious person offer a counter for this argument. I see it and I have none.

Logical problem of evil

  1. God exists. (premise)
  2. God is omnipotent and omniscient. (premise ? or true by definition of the word "God")
  3. God is all-benevolent. (premise ? or true by definition)
  4. All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil. (premise ? or true by definition)
  5. All-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will do so immediately when they become aware of it. (premise)
  6. God is opposed to all evil. (conclusion from 3 and 4)
  7. God can eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 2)
    1. Whatever the end result of suffering is, God can bring it about by ways that do not include suffering. (conclusion from 2)
    2. God has no reason not to eliminate evil. (conclusion from 7.1)
    3. God has no reason not to act immediately. (conclusion from 5)
  8. God will eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 6, 7.2 and 7.3)
  9. Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist. (premise)
  10. Items 8 and 9 are contradictory; therefore, one or more of the premises is false: either God does not exist, evil does not exist, God is not simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient and all-benevolent, or all-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will not necessarily do so immediately when they become aware of it.

Argument from evil natural laws and processes

  1. A god is omnipotent, omniscient, and all-benevolent.
  2. If a god exists, then there exist no instances of ultimately evil natural laws or processes.
  3. The laws of predation are ultimately evil.
  4. There are instances of the laws of predation.
  5. Therefore, no god exists.
Inductive argument from evil

  1. All evil in the kinds of created entities are the result of the fallibility of one or more of its creators. (Premise)
  2. The universe is a created entity. (Premise)
  3. The universe contains evil. (Premise)
  4. Evil is the result of the actions of a fallible creator(s) or is not the result of any creator(s). (From 1, 2 and 3 by predictive inference)
  5. If god created the universe, then he is fallible. (From 4)
  6. Therefore, god did not create the universe, is imperfect, or does not exist. (From 5)
 
Upvote 0
DaytonBuck;1421726; said:
Can a religious person offer a counter for this argument. I see it and I have none.

Logical problem of evil

  1. God exists. (premise)
  2. God is omnipotent and omniscient. (premise ? or true by definition of the word "God")
  3. God is all-benevolent. (premise ? or true by definition)
  4. All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil. (premise ? or true by definition)
  5. All-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will do so immediately when they become aware of it. (premise)
  6. God is opposed to all evil. (conclusion from 3 and 4)
  7. God can eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 2)
    1. Whatever the end result of suffering is, God can bring it about by ways that do not include suffering. (conclusion from 2)
    2. God has no reason not to eliminate evil. (conclusion from 7.1)
    3. God has no reason not to act immediately. (conclusion from 5)
  8. God will eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 6, 7.2 and 7.3)
  9. Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist. (premise)
  10. Items 8 and 9 are contradictory; therefore, one or more of the premises is false: either God does not exist, evil does not exist, God is not simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient and all-benevolent, or all-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will not necessarily do so immediately when they become aware of it.

Argument from evil natural laws and processes

  1. A god is omnipotent, omniscient, and all-benevolent.
  2. If a god exists, then there exist no instances of ultimately evil natural laws or processes.
  3. The laws of predation are ultimately evil.
  4. There are instances of the laws of predation.
  5. Therefore, no god exists.
Inductive argument from evil

  1. All evil in the kinds of created entities are the result of the fallibility of one or more of its creators. (Premise)
  2. The universe is a created entity. (Premise)
  3. The universe contains evil. (Premise)
  4. Evil is the result of the actions of a fallible creator(s) or is not the result of any creator(s). (From 1, 2 and 3 by predictive inference)
  5. If god created the universe, then he is fallible. (From 4)
  6. Therefore, god did not create the universe, is imperfect, or does not exist. (From 5)
Click to expand...
There's no such thing as evil. It seems like there is, because we label all kinds of things as "evil" But... really, there's no such thing as evil (good either). There simply is...

Next question.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1421738; said:
There's no such thing as evil. It seems like there is, because we label all kinds of things as "evil" But... really, there's no such thing as evil (good either). There simply is...

Next question.
Click to expand...

So evil/good is a human construct unrelated to god?
 
Upvote 0
DaytonBuck;1421726; said:
Can a religious person offer a counter for this argument. I see it and I have none.

Logical problem of evil

  1. God exists. (premise)
  2. God is omnipotent and omniscient. (premise ? or true by definition of the word "God")
  3. God is all-benevolent. (premise ? or true by definition)
  4. All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil. (premise ? or true by definition)
  5. All-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will do so immediately when they become aware of it. (premise)
  6. God is opposed to all evil. (conclusion from 3 and 4)
  7. God can eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 2)
    1. Whatever the end result of suffering is, God can bring it about by ways that do not include suffering. (conclusion from 2)
    2. God has no reason not to eliminate evil. (conclusion from 7.1)
    3. God has no reason not to act immediately. (conclusion from 5)
  8. God will eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 6, 7.2 and 7.3)
  9. Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist. (premise)
  10. Items 8 and 9 are contradictory; therefore, one or more of the premises is false: either God does not exist, evil does not exist, God is not simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient and all-benevolent, or all-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will not necessarily do so immediately when they become aware of it.
Argument from evil natural laws and processes

  1. A god is omnipotent, omniscient, and all-benevolent.
  2. If a god exists, then there exist no instances of ultimately evil natural laws or processes.
  3. The laws of predation are ultimately evil.
  4. There are instances of the laws of predation.
  5. Therefore, no god exists.
Inductive argument from evil

  1. All evil in the kinds of created entities are the result of the fallibility of one or more of its creators. (Premise)
  2. The universe is a created entity. (Premise)
  3. The universe contains evil. (Premise)
  4. Evil is the result of the actions of a fallible creator(s) or is not the result of any creator(s). (From 1, 2 and 3 by predictive inference)
  5. If god created the universe, then he is fallible. (From 4)
  6. Therefore, god did not create the universe, is imperfect, or does not exist. (From 5)
Click to expand...

This clip sounds confusing at first, especially the part stated by R.C. Sproul, although I think he has the best answer of the three of them, but if you think about it, it really does make sense as the answer provided from the Judeo-Christian perspective.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z51JkJUer2E"]YouTube - Ravi Zacharias, R.C. Sproul, Al Mohler on God and Evil[/ame]

BKB, you will even notice that they acknowledge your perspective, but of course their conclusion is that you really should just shut up on all issues of right and wrong. While I'm not going to tell you to shut up, I have to admit that I am always surprised that you take some of the stances you do considering your view that everything "just is", and even more surprised by the passion that appears to be behind some of them. I really can't wrap my head around the idea of why even bother with positions on issues when everything just is.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad;1421808; said:
BKB, you will even notice that they acknowledge your perspective, but of course their conclusion is that you really should just shut up on all issues of right and wrong. While I'm not going to tell you to shut up, I have to admit that I am always surprised that you take some of the stances you do considering your view that everything "just is", and even more surprised by the passion that appears to be behind some of them. I really can't wrap my head around the idea of why even bother with positions on issues when everything just is.
Click to expand...
I've given this very issue some consideration over the last couple years....

A) Of the things that "just are" I am one of them as well, and so it would stand to figure that I would "just do" whatever it is that I feel I should "just do" (In terms of saying the things I say about the things I believe) Or in other words, I am human and act like one.
B) What you take as "passion" does not include, from my perspective, emotion. That's not to say I lack emotion, or even that I never express emotion (good or bad) in an argument... but, generally speaking, I do not connect myself to my ideas.
C) Sort of in line with consideration A, things just being does not render me unable to have an opinion. That is, I concede that "right and wrong" or "good and evil" are human concepts of how to describe the world. Why should it be surprising that I would have my own descriptors? Now, we can debate the "goodness" or "evilness" of whatever thing/action, but my contention is not that we humans are precluded from reaching any sort of consensus on the issue (take cold blooded murder, which we both consider "wrong" or "evil") but that there is no fundamental goodness or evilness to the action just because we agree it is so.

On another issue - as I was contemplating the argument of evil on my ride in to work, it struck me, and I think is in line with Bgrad's question to me -

The argument relies on Evil existing to arrive at the conclusion that G-d doesn't exist (not the only conclusion (see, Arg. 1, but generally that's the "push" of the suggestion by those who'd argue it).

Ironically, the conclusion forces the arguer to reconcile the fault in his own premise. That is to say the premise:

Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist
Click to expand...

Has no meaning without some sort of final arbiter of what is and what is not "evil" But, the "proof" itself argues that there is no G-d to arbitrate... thus "evil" is rendered as subjective and not universal. As such, "evil" might have ANY meaning. We might as well make an argument from Snakes...
Snakes exist, therefore G-d is dead.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1421742; said:
That seems to follow, yes.
Click to expand...

Certainly situational. If killing and eating a cute little puppy is evil, and if I kill and eat a cute little puppy and I am evil, then all coyotes and mountain lions and leopards and lions and bears and hyenas and wolves and foxes, etc., that kill and eat cute little puppies are evil.

The only fall back would be to say that - yeah - but you have an intellect - they kill puppies to live, but I can eat wheat. OK. But I eat cute little cows too when I have veal, so I must be evil for eating veal.

There is certainly a huge amount of subjectivity for something that many people would think is "evil". Compared to eating and killing a puppy, Vick's letting adult dogs fight is a lessor crime, no?

So should puppy killer/eaters go to jail too?
 
Upvote 0
Only if enough people in some organized society decide that crimes against cute animals is punishable by jailing. If some society decides it's not punishable, I may have an opinion about it, but I can't argue from authority that said acts are with any inherent "badness"
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1421852; said:
Only if enough people in some organized society decide that crimes against cute animals is punishable by jailing. If some society decides it's not punishable, I may have an opinion about it, but I can't argue from authority that said acts are with any inherent "badness"
Click to expand...

So we can't even agree on the existence of a moral basis - ya know, the thing that creates the distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum? :biggrin:
 
Upvote 0
DaytonBuck;1421726; said:
Can a religious person offer a counter for this argument. I see it and I have none.

Logical problem of evil

  1. God exists. (premise)
  2. God is omnipotent and omniscient. (premise ? or true by definition of the word "God")
  3. God is all-benevolent. (premise ? or true by definition)
  4. All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil. (premise ? or true by definition)
Click to expand...
Since the argument is made sequentially, and each point is built on the previous, I'll stop here.

Isaiah 45
5. I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God: I will strengthen you although you have not known Me. ה. 6. In order that they know from the shining of the sun and from the west that there is no one besides Me; I am the Lord and there is no other. ו. 7. Who forms light and creates darkness, Who makes peace and creates evil; I am the Lord, Who makes all these.


According to the Tanakh (Jewish Bible), G-d can create evil. I believe this doesn't substantiate the point that was made in the initial argument.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1421738; said:
There's no such thing as evil. It seems like there is, because we label all kinds of things as "evil" But... really, there's no such thing as evil (good either). There simply is...

Next question.
Click to expand...

I would like to note that the point I make above is not necessarily in disagreement with this POV. From my perspective, G-d is ineffable; therefore, the motive behind the things that G-d creates (in this instance evil) are beyond my comprehension.

Does that make sense?
 
Upvote 0
muffler dragon;1421946; said:
I would like to note that the point I make above is not necessarily in disagreement with this POV. From my perspective, G-d is ineffable; therefore, the motive behind the things that G-d creates (in this instance evil) are beyond my comprehension.

Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me. I would consider the passage you quote as saying "yeah, all this stuff you're wondering about... whatever names you've given it, I created it."
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top