Does The Fact That Evil Exists Mean There Is No God?

Dee

@just_sayin

And they all lived happily ever after ......

Sonofason

JulesKorngold said:

This question is often posed in the following way:

• If God is omnipotent, then God can prevent evil.
• If God is omniscient, then God knows about evil.
• If God is morally perfect, then God wants to prevent evil.
• Evil exists.

Therefore, either God does not exist, God is not omnipotent, God is not omniscient, or God is not morally perfect.

Since God is omnipotent, then God could create evil.
Since God is omniscient, God knows why He would create evil.
Apparently preventing evil is not a prerequisite for moral perfection.
First of all, Evil is not necessarily a thing. It may be entirely a subjective concept.
However, Since God enabled us to be capable of contemplating evil, it is likely that He had a good reason for enabling us to be capable of contemplating it. 
Perhaps God believes evil exists.  Perhaps God knows why it exists.  Perhaps God created it.  Perhaps God wants us to recognize it.
As I am not God, I can only speculate as to why evil seems to exist.  But I am quite sure that no one could recognize anything good if evil did not exist.  
Indeed you cannot prevent evil if you cannot recognize it when you see it.

Yes God is omnipotent
Yes God is omniscient.
Yes God is morally perfect.
and yes, that is why evil exists.

Kenny Rogers said it well...
"You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run
You never count your money
When you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin'
When the dealin's done"

MayCaesar

Virtually all comprehensive philosophies ever invented by mankind featured some concept of "balance" in the Universe. "Balance" refers to intrinsic equality between opposites. Chaos balances out order, heat balances out cold, love balances out hatred... evil balances out good. Different manifestations of balance have specific terms assigned to them: "justice", "fairness", "retribution", "conservation"...

The importance of balance is that without it the opposites cannot really exist. For instance, darkness and light are opposites: darkness is absence of light, and if there was no light in the world, the concept of "darkness" would make no sense either. Similarly, if everything was lit up, then the concept of "darkness" would lose all meaning.

Similarly, a world in which everything is good cannot exist: if everything is good, then there is nothing to put "good" against, therefore "good" cannot be defined. If "good" is the opposite of "evil" and there is no evil in the world, then there is no good either.

Now, consider the perspective of a being that is omnipotent, omniscient and despises evil. As much as it does despise evil, it must love the good - and since without evil the good cannot exist, it must allow for evil to exist. Now, it probably will not intentionally subject living beings to evil - however, it will build the world in such a way in which living beings routinely are faced with both evil and the good, so that they can act in a way that leads them towards the good and away from the evil. As the living beings get more and more aligned with this motion, the old evils will gradually disappear, being replaced by new evils that, perhaps, are much more tolerable than before on some absolute scale - however, from the living beings' perspective it will be as intolerable as before as their standards will have shifted accordingly. It is much like poor people: as economies grow, yesterday's poor become richer - yet the threshold below which someone is considered to be poor will also rise, and the fraction of the poor is going to stay the same as before as per new standards.

It seems to me that the only way to create a world without evil is to create a world of perfect moral neutrality. In which nothing is "right" or "wrong". In which nothing is desirable or undesirable. It would definitely have to be a world without living beings, which - for the lack of internal observers - effectively would not exist.

Note that it is possible to not want something, to be able to avoid it, even to be able to avoid it at zero cost effort-wise - and yet be willing to accept it. For example, you may not want to exercise tomorrow, you can avoid it, and, in fact, avoiding it has zero immediate cost (in fact, it has negative cost, as you will have extra time to do other things, more energy to do them, and so on) - however, you realize that in the long run the consequences of this decision being made systematically will be drastic, and so you embrace "the suck". Similarly, a creator of a world might realize that, as much as evil is despicable, without it nothing interesting can exist, so evil is a necessary evil (pun intended) in creation of a world populated by living beings. It would love to create a world in which there is only good and no evil - but it cannot, not even with its omnipotence (as long as omnipotence does not imply the ability to defy basic logic; if it does, then there is nothing to talk about, for a world in which it is possible to defy basic logic is going to be utterly incomprehensible to a sentient mind).

just_sayin

If you believe that objective evil exists, then there must be an objective good lawgiver, otherwise there is no such thing as 'objective evil'.  Evil would then just be whatever you don't like.  Arguing that something is evil, no matter who does it, means appealing to some objective lawgiver - and it must not be an individual or group because both individuals and groups differ on what is 'evil' at times.

GnosticChristian

We have the best Gods and evils possible, given our past.

The Gnostic Christian reality.

Gnostic Christian Jesus said,  "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all.

[And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

"If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.

If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.

 Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.

 [Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.

 But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

 As you can see from that quote, if we see God's kingdom all around us and inside of us, we cannot think that the world is anything but evolving perfection. Most just don't see it and live in poverty. Let me try to make you see the world the way I do.

Here is a mind exercise. Tell me what you see when you look around. The best that can possibly be, given our past history, or an ugly and imperfect world?

Candide.

"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

 That means that we live in the best of all possible worlds, because it is the only possible world, given all the conditions at hand and the history that got us here. That is an irrefutable statement given entropy and the anthropic principle.

This also means that the Gods and evils we have at any given point in time, are at their best possible point for all of us.

Happy to be proven wrong, but I cannot break the logic and reason. I think it must be true, like it or not.

21CenturyIconoclast

Argument Topic: just_sayin



.

OH LOOK! The Bible fool "just_sayin" has been RUNNING AWAY FOR THREE MONTHS from my post where the serial killer Jesus God created EVIL, where "just_sayin" was to embarrassed to even try to address this post: August 29  LOL!

What's new in this respect of the RUNAWAY "just_sayin," NOTHING!

NEXT?

.

just_sayin

21CenturyIconoclast said:

.

OH LOOK! The Bible fool "just_sayin" has been RUNNING AWAY FOR THREE MONTHS from my post where the serial killer Jesus God created EVIL, where "just_sayin" was to embarrassed to even try to address this post: August 29  LOL!

What's new in this respect of the RUNAWAY "just_sayin," NOTHING!

NEXT?

.

I answered your fake charge already.  Just because you repeated it, doesn't mean it wasn't already addressed.  See

https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/166436/#Comment_166436

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

How dare you propose that Jesus was born in a stinky and messy manger where farm animals slobbered in to eat their food, as in Luke 2:8-12?!  Isn't Jesus being an outright bloody and brutal serial killer, especially to innocent zygotes, fetus' and babies enough embarrassment to Christianity? Huh?

Just imagine that the Christian god was born into a manger as shown below which is DISGUSTING to say the least!:
https://www.2ndcongregationalchurchvt.org/uploads/5/6/4/0/56402889/published/18ce9c87-d829-4570-8b97-e8edf5164f26.jpeg?1608582789

We can see you're still RUNNING AWAY from my posts to you in other threads .... LOL!

.

GnosticChristian

Jesus and his time paradox of living before his mother and the immorality of messianic primciples.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

Jesus, the son of two virgins, to literalist Christians, is placed in the Trinity before his mother was even conceived.

Science --- seems to denounce that verse and idea as invalid, due to the paradox it creates.

Moral law analysis --- demonstrably denounces the messianic notion as immoral. Ask any judge.

The literalist and believers in the supernatural, likely do not care about this time paradox and immoral messianic notions.

Thoughts on the science of time?

What of the immorality of the messianic principles, as accepted by all judges?

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

Still RUNNING AWAY from this post of mine that was directed to you!  August 29

And you want to call yourself a Christian? NOT!  LOL!


NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN RUNAWAY FROM JESUS' TRUE INSPIRED WORDS WITHIN THE SCRIPTURES LIKE "JUST-SAYIN," WILL BE ...?

.

Dreamer

@just_sayin

The study you refer to is deeply flawed pseudo-science.

"That may well be because there is neither scientific consensus on the matter of when human life actually begins nor agreement that it is a question that biologists can answer using their science."

https://www.salon.com/2021/09/07/when-human-life-begins-is-a-question-of-politics--not-biology_partner/

The author is clearly biased if you look at his twitter account his is very pro-life. His degree is in comparative human development, he is not even a biologist.

This is why many people advise me not to argue with MAGA. Critical thinking is difficult and time consuming. This is why debate favors myths.

just_sayin

Dreamer said:

@just_sayin

The study you refer to is deeply flawed pseudo-science.

"That may well be because there is neither scientific consensus on the matter of when human life actually begins nor agreement that it is a question that biologists can answer using their science."

https://www.salon.com/2021/09/07/when-human-life-begins-is-a-question-of-politics--not-biology_partner/

The author is clearly biased if you look at his twitter account his is very pro-life. His degree is in comparative human development, he is not even a biologist.

This is why many people advise me not to argue with MAGA. Critical thinking is difficult and time consuming. This is why debate favors myths.

To make it easier next time mention the source you are talking about.  I'm not @Dee and @Barnardot.  I reference multiple sources all the time.  I assume you mean 

the University of Chicago study:

Biologists' Consensus on 'When Life Begins'

Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502).

First, I have to point out that you quoted a Salon article to refute a University of Chicago paper.  @Dreamer, for someone who always talks about the quality of sources, this is simply unacceptable behavior from you.  Secondly, it doesn't matter if the author is biased.  As I continually point out to you, the facts are not dependent upon the messenger.  They can be evaluated differently.

You have claimed that there is no consensus on when life begins.  So I will quote from some sources for you.  

Medical Textbooks:

As cited on https://www.epm.org/resources/2011/Apr/27/when-does-life-begin-quotes-many-sources/

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:

"[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

From Human Embryology & Teratology, Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55:

1. "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed... Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments... The zygote ... is a unicellular embryo.."

Essentials of Human Embryology, William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17:

"In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. ... Fertilization takes place in the oviduct ... resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."

Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43:

1. "It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2:
(updated, still the same)

"Human begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." "A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)."

T.W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11:

"Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote."

Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2:

"[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being."

J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics (Philadelphia: W.B. Sanders, 1974), 17:

"The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life."

Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8:

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization... is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte."

William J. Larsen, Essentials of Human Embryology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998. pp. 1, 14:

"Human embryos begin development following the fusion of definitive male and female gametes during fertilization... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."

Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3:

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."

E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii:

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."

Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974:

"In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun."

Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986:

"...but the whole story does not begin with delivery. The baby has existed for months before - at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by..."

Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943:

"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."

Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3:

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."

Turner, J.S., and Helms, D.B., Lifespan Developmental, 2nd ed., CBS College Publishing (Holt, Rhinehart, Winston), 1983, page 53:

"A zygote (a single fertilized egg cell) represents the onset of pregnancy and the genesis of new life."

Clark, J. ed., The Nervous System: Circuits of Communication in the Human Body, Torstar Books Inc., Toronto, 1985, page 99:

"Each human begins life as a combination of two cells, a female ovum and a much smaller male sperm. This tiny unit, no bigger than a period on this page, contains all the information needed to enable it to grow into the complex ...structure of the human body. The mother has only to provide nutrition and protection."

Scarr, S., Weinberg, R.A., and Levine A., Understanding Development, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1986. page 86:

"The development of a new human being begins when a male's sperm pierces the cell membrane of a female's ovum, or egg....The villi become the placenta, which will nourish the developing infant for the next eight and a half months."

Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419:

"The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual."

DeCoursey, R.M., The Human Organism, 4th edition McGraw Hill Inc., Toronto, 1974. page 584:

"The zygote therefore contains a new arrangement of genes on the chromosomes never before duplicated in any other individual. The offspring destined to develop from the fertilized ovum will have a genetic constitution different from anyone else in the world."

In the Womb, National Geographic, 2005 (Prenatal Development Video):

"The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception, when an individual's unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated."

The Biology of Prenatal Development, National Geographic, 2006. (Video):

"Biologically speaking, human development begins at fertilization."

Encyclopedia Britannica, "Pregnancy," page 968, 15th Edition. Chicago 1974:

"A new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg."

Leslie Brainerd Arey, "Developmental Anatomy" seventh edition (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55:

"The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization."

Here's another list complied by a Princeton Graduate student:  https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

From Famous Geneticists and Scientists

Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception:
"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."

Dr. Jerome Lejeune, "Father of Modern Genetics", told the lawmakers:
"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."

Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified:
"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded:
"I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human being....I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."

Dr. Richard V. Jaynes:
"To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous."

Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the "Father of In Vitro Fertilization" notes:
"Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind."
And on the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade:
"To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion."

Professor Eugene Diamond:
"...either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty."

Gordon, Hymie, M.D., F.R.C.P., Chairman of Medical Genetics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester:
"By all criteria of modern molecular biology,life is present from the moment of conception...Science has a very simple conception of man; as soon as he has been conceived, a man is a man."

C. Christopher Hook, M.D. Oncologist, Mayo Clinic, Director of Ethics Education, Mayo Graduate School of Medicine:
"When fertilization is complete, a unique genetic human entity exists."

Even the former president and representatives of Planned Parenthood has said that human life begins at conception:

Dr. Alan Guttmacher, ardent proponent of abortion, in his book Pregnancy and Birth: A Book for Expectant Parents New American Library; Revised Ed edition (January 1, 1962) He was the president of Planned Parenthood and fought to make and keep abortion legal:

"A facet that makes the obstetrician's burden unique in the whole field of medicine is his double obligation; he simultaneously cares for two patients, the mother and the infant...The essential step in the initiation of life is by fertilization, the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and the fusion of the two cells into a single cell."

Planned Parenthood's former medical director Mary Calderone, M.D. Quoted by pro-choice author Magda Denes. Appears in "The Zero People: Essays on Life" by Jeffrey Hensley, Servant Publications (March 1983) p. 9:

"Fertilization, then, has taken place. A baby has been conceived."

Put away your flat-earth Salon article and be honest about what the science says.

maxx

just a question. what makes you think evil exist? It is a human concept; people decide what is evil. If evil existed then it would be a natural force. @JulesKorngold

just_sayin

maxx said:

just a question. what makes you think evil exist? It is a human concept; people decide what is evil. If evil existed then it would be a natural force. @JulesKorngold

Excellent point.  If there is no universal lawgiver, then there is no such thing as objective evil.  Evil is just something someone finds undesirable.  However, most people would say somethings are evil even if someone else denies that they are and even if society disagrees.  Things like child molestation, or slavery, or the Holocaust (well except for leftists on college campuses) would think these things are evil, even if someone claims they are not.  

Another aspect of this is that for people who believe that there is no free will, like Sam Harris, they can not reasonably then say objective evil exists.  If someone has no choice in their decision, then their decision is just nature, and nature is neither good nor bad, it is just a natural force that does not make decisions based on moral values.  So, you can only have objective evil in a world with free will and a ultimate moral lawgiver.

maxx

if actual evil existed then ir would exist not just in humans, but in lower animals as well. It is humans that decide. Do a pack of wolves think they are evil for attacking a deer? nope, humans don't even think that.  What we call evil is based upon societies idea of it. @just_sayin

just_sayin

maxx said:

if actual evil existed then ir would exist not just in humans, but in lower animals as well. It is humans that decide. Do a pack of wolves think they are evil for attacking a deer? nope, humans don't even think that.  What we call evil is based upon societies idea of it. @just_sayin

@Maxx, while I don't agree with your implied conclusion that there is no ultimate lawgiver, I do agree that you are consistent in your logic.  Though I would argue that animals do not have the ability to think in the way humans do and therefore lack the 'imago dei' for lack of a better term that humans do to make moral choices.  Surely, you aren't implying that your just like a wild animal in the decisions you make, are you? 

I think real evil does exist.  I think some things are wrong, no matter who claims they are OK.  And as such that is evidence that an ultimate lawgiver exists in my eyes.  

maxx

 What we call evil is just ideas and concepts that are morally wrong. murder is not right in our opinion, but evil smacks of super natural problems; ands while their may be as such, i still consider evil, a moral idea. For all we know, in another world, such actions are acceptable for those with reason. Evil, like every other thing is in the eye of the beholder, or rather the eye of society and its standards.  it is our ability to reason  that says it is evil; mainly based upon the laws we evolved since ancient times. Lower animas have no abstract laws, nor actual morals that humans have built into them, so so it is perfectly acceptable for them to do what humans regard as evil behavior. If we acted as they do, we would be just as evil as they in what they do.  If all of a sudden, there were no human law, no stop gap, if society collapsed, then it is quite possible humans would resort to behavior that we would today call evil.  Is their evil in the world? It depends upon society. Even if there is a creator who gives a law. evil would still depend upon the laws he imposed. So in answer to your question, evil, or our idea of it can exist with or with out a god; simply because of the morals placed upon us. @just_sayin

just_sayin

maxx said:

 What we call evil is just ideas and concepts that are morally wrong. murder is not right in our opinion, but evil smacks of super natural problems; ands while their may be as such, i still consider evil, a moral idea. For all we know, in another world, such actions are acceptable for those with reason. Evil, like every other thing is in the eye of the beholder, or rather the eye of society and its standards.  it is our ability to reason  that says it is evil; mainly based upon the laws we evolved since ancient times. Lower animas have no abstract laws, nor actual morals that humans have built into them, so so it is perfectly acceptable for them to do what humans regard as evil behavior. If we acted as they do, we would be just as evil as they in what they do.  If all of a sudden, there were no human law, no stop gap, if society collapsed, then it is quite possible humans would resort to behavior that we would today call evil.  Is their evil in the world? It depends upon society. Even if there is a creator who gives a law. evil would still depend upon the laws he imposed. So in answer to your question, evil, or our idea of it can exist with or with out a god; simply because of the morals placed upon us. @just_sayin

@maxx, we haven't had a lot of interactions on the site. Let me just say it is a delight to engage with someone who articulates their point of view without attacking the person they are talking with.  

You said something that seems contradictory to me - " it is our ability to reason  that says it is evil; mainly based upon the laws we evolved since ancient times. Lower animas have no abstract laws, nor actual morals that humans have built into them, so so it is perfectly acceptable for them to do what humans regard as evil behavior."  These 2 sentences seem contrary to me.  If ideas of evil evolved, then wouldn't they have evolved when we were lower forms of creatures too?  This seems to me to logically follow your argument.  The problem, I see with this, or with arguing that our morals are based on the prior experiences of primitive humans, is that we see behaviors in animals, or in our primitive ancestors, that evolutionary help them that we would call 'evil'.  For instance, rape from an evolutionary standpoint is very beneficial in that it helps to pass on one's genes to the next generation.  Animals do it all the time, and there is evidence that our ancient ancestors did also.  Our view of rape today seems to be at odds with evolution.  Genocide seems to something most would say is evil, yet from an evolutionary perspective it would be quite helpful to wipe out an enemy tribe or nation.  

Laws are a reflection of an individual or groups moral values.  However, most would say that if a law permitted slavery, it was still immoral.  Or if a law permitted the taking of another's possessions without their consent, most would know it is morally wrong, even if it is legally OK to do.  

Since you don't believe that there is objective evil in the world.  Then why should someone follow any laws?  Wouldn't that logically mean that someone's views on right and wrong, are no better than a sociopath's views?  Why is the sociopath wrong to kill when his morals tell him it is OK?  

maxx

  As well, and even with the differences between our views, i appreciate the calmness of your reply, for so many on here who differ, simply resort to ridicule, and insults.   The reason that the idea of lower forms of animals not evolving the concept of evil is because they lack the reasoning and thinking process that humans developed; as well  the differences between humans and lower animals, ii is acceptable for them to engage in behavior that is repulsive to us. We have morals that they do not, and these morals are based upon law and how society expects us to act; from the very ancient tribes to today. Why these ideas in ancient tribes began is a good guess; perhaps to keep the tribe intact. Killing each other off is a no win situation. Evil is but a word, to do what is not acceptable to the point of extreme behavior. Most would consider, rape, incest, and many other things evil, but it depends on society and its ideas. At one time, not even very long ago, it was quite acceptable for child brides to be married to adults. Today, it is not acceptable, it is morally wrong, some even call it evil. Incest? the same thing. Times change, and with it our idea of what is right and wrong.    From an evolutionary point of view, murder can and was used for survival. To kill for various reason, food, women, territory, and so on, and these ideas, such survival aspects, are probably still inherent with in us, which may explain all the "evil" and crime we experience as of today.    back in biblical times, slavery was not only permitted but encouraged. It was not immoral, nor considered wrong. Today we may look back on those times and say how wrong it was. Let us at this point replace the word evil, with justice. It is also a concept. Without our laws and morals, and ideas of what justice should be, then there is no justice. I think humans created both evil and justice. Or at least the ideas of it, for we define it based upon how society adapts to itself. You asked why "should" we follow laws, rather than why do; so in my opinion; i would say we should follow laws to protect  each other and society as a whole. Society is much different than in ancient times; and we no longer need to act in the same way. A creator may or may not exist, however the laws and morals that religion has given us, reflects upon us; and this is why we are different from the lower animals. We have given ourself specific ideas and morals to live by in order to create a better society as well as better humans.   @just_sayin

Dee

@maxx

ARGUMENT TOPIC: Maxx is ranting about how others resort to insult and ridicule below........

As well, and even with the differences between our views, i appreciate the calmness of your reply, for so many on here who differ, simply resort to ridicule, and insults. 


Calm Maxx who never resorts to ridicule and insults when asked to clarify his postion says in response ...........

• maxx 1082 Pts   -  7:28PM
  go climb your tree and clean your fur you African pedo.  All you can do is insult people. little man behind the internet, thinks he is a man. im effing done with you. learn to debate, scum bag. @Dee
  
  

MAXXS LUNACY IS STAGGERING , ONE GOOD THING THOUGH HE STILL HAS HIS LOOKS TO FALL BACK ON ......ROFLMAO ......4 INCH BOTTLE  THICK GLASSES , GREASY WAIST LENGHT HAIR , A SPECTACULAR BEER GUT , FEET LIKE PLANKS ...,SOMEWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE THERE MUST BE SOME LOST SOUL WHO WILL PITY HIM ........ANYONE ........COME ON....NO 

ZeusAres42

@JulesKorngold

The argument you've presented is a classic form of the Problem of Evil, an ancient philosophical and theological debate. 

1.  One of the most common refutations is the free will defense. This argument posits that God, being omnipotent and morally perfect, created beings with free will. Free will is valuable because it allows for genuine relationships and moral choices. However, it also means that beings can choose to do evil. In this view, God could prevent evil but chooses not to do so in order to preserve free will. Therefore, the existence of evil does not necessarily negate God's omnipotence, omniscience, or moral perfection.

2. Greater Good Defense: Another argument is that God allows evil because it leads to a greater good that we, as humans, might not be able to understand due to our limited perspective. This approach suggests that what we perceive as evil may contribute to a greater good that justifies its existence, and thus, a morally perfect God might permit evil for reasons that are beyond human understanding.

3. The Nature of Omnipotence and Omniscience: Some argue that the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience do not necessarily entail the ability or obligation to prevent all evil. For instance, omnipotence could be understood as the ability to do all that is logically possible, and it may not be logically possible to create free beings who never choose evil. Similarly, omniscience involves knowing all that can be known, but it does not necessarily imply that God must act on all knowledge in a way that humans deem appropriate.

4. Redefining Evil and Good: Another approach is to redefine the concepts of evil and good. Perhaps what we perceive as evil is not evil in the ultimate sense, or there might be a different framework in which these events are judged or understood. This approach often leads into more complex theological or philosophical systems that view the world from a vastly different perspective than traditional theism.

5. The Limitations of Human Understanding: This argument suggests that human beings are not capable of fully understanding God’s nature or plans. What we perceive as evil or suffering might have a purpose or reason that is beyond our comprehension. In this view, the existence of evil does not disprove God's attributes but rather highlights the limitations of human understanding.

6. Different Theological Interpretations: Some theologies do not hold that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect in the way the argument assumes. For instance, in process theology, God's power is often seen as persuasive rather than coercive, and thus God cannot unilaterally prevent evil.

just_sayin

maxx said:

  As well, and even with the differences between our views, i appreciate the calmness of your reply, for so many on here who differ, simply resort to ridicule, and insults.   The reason that the idea of lower forms of animals not evolving the concept of evil is because they lack the reasoning and thinking process that humans developed; as well  the differences between humans and lower animals, ii is acceptable for them to engage in behavior that is repulsive to us. We have morals that they do not, and these morals are based upon law and how society expects us to act; from the very ancient tribes to today. Why these ideas in ancient tribes began is a good guess; perhaps to keep the tribe intact. Killing each other off is a no win situation. Evil is but a word, to do what is not acceptable to the point of extreme behavior. Most would consider, rape, incest, and many other things evil, but it depends on society and its ideas. At one time, not even very long ago, it was quite acceptable for child brides to be married to adults. Today, it is not acceptable, it is morally wrong, some even call it evil. Incest? the same thing. Times change, and with it our idea of what is right and wrong.    From an evolutionary point of view, murder can and was used for survival. To kill for various reason, food, women, territory, and so on, and these ideas, such survival aspects, are probably still inherent with in us, which may explain all the "evil" and crime we experience as of today.    back in biblical times, slavery was not only permitted but encouraged. It was not immoral, nor considered wrong. Today we may look back on those times and say how wrong it was. Let us at this point replace the word evil, with justice. It is also a concept. Without our laws and morals, and ideas of what justice should be, then there is no justice. I think humans created both evil and justice. Or at least the ideas of it, for we define it based upon how society adapts to itself. You asked why "should" we follow laws, rather than why do; so in my opinion; i would say we should follow laws to protect  each other and society as a whole. Society is much different than in ancient times; and we no longer need to act in the same way. A creator may or may not exist, however the laws and morals that religion has given us, reflects upon us; and this is why we are different from the lower animals. We have given ourself specific ideas and morals to live by in order to create a better society as well as better humans.   @just_sayin

To me this view of good and evil is deficient.  If one believes that individuals create justice, then if one individual feels its OK to kill members of a group he doesn't like, then he is just in his actions.  If one says that groups determine what is just then that would suggest that we would have to conclude that Germany was just in the Holocaust because they as a society executed Jews and felt they were just in doing so.  One would also have to say that slavery was not wrong for the time period that it was legally permitted, since those societies deemed it moral.  Are you saying that slavery and Jew killing were just?  It seems to me this is the only logical conclusion to this view.  And to me this seems woefully lacking in justice.  

Dee

@just_sayin


ARGUMENT TOPIC: the astounding hypocrisy and ignorance of Just Sayin rears its head again.


To me this view of good and evil is deficient.  If one believes that individuals create justice, then if one individual feels its OK to kill members of a group he doesn't like, then he is just in his actions. 

Well one group of people at the moment the Israeli government feel it just and moral to slaughter men ,women and children in Palestine in  an act of retaliation that's been condemed worldwide including by your own government,  you've just beaten your own argument as youre fully behind the Israeli government's actions.

If one says that groups determine what is just then that would suggest that we would have to conclude that Germany was just in the Holocaust because they as a society executed Jews and felt they were just in doing so

But you're openly admitting that the Israeli government are just in what they're doing so you're guilty of the irrational thinking you accuse Nazis of.


.  One would also have to say that slavery was not wrong for the time period that it was legally permitted, since those societies deemed it moral.

Yes and the bible , Jesus and God fully believed slavery was just and moral , so did so called Christian Americans who segregated blacks up to the 1960's.

  Are you saying that slavery and Jew killing were just? 

Your bible says slavery is just find,  and you think Palestinian killing is just and moral.

 It seems to me this is the only logical conclusion to this view.  And to me this seems woefully lacking in justice.  

I agree that view is totally lacking in justice yet you agree with the views you claim to dislike when they suit your needs .

If you ever really  took time to understood the golden rule as first put forward by Confucius 600 years before Jesus you might be able to develop the beginnings of a coherent sense of moralty but as usual you totally ignore all of the bible teachings and words that don't align with your Republican/ Trump   version of Christianity.

Dreamer

@just_sayin

I was responding to the pseudo-science article below.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/

 Peer reviewed articles are considered the best sources of information. Yet, they are by not means perfect. A quintessential example is Andrew Wakefield's Lancelot article that took years to be retracted.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nm0310-248b

I haven't looked deeply into the journal, but there are low credibility journals are run by quacks. In other words fake peer reviewed articles.  The author Jacobs is a pro-life lawyer.

The Salon article is a re-post from conversation. I grow weary of debating with you. With a firehose of falsehoods I catch 80 out of 100 and the other 20 I miss only to slowly catch later. A lie is halfway around the globe by the time truth gets its boots on. 

https://theconversation.com/defining-when-human-life-begins-is-not-a-question-science-can-answer-its-a-question-of-politics-and-ethical-values-165514

You use fake experts in this example, biologists are not qualified to answer when human life begins. In fact, this is not a scientific question at all and cannot be answer by science.

In the end you don't fight fair. Your lack of acknowledging, apologizing, and retraction of misinformation make this a pseudo-debate. I understand people make mistakes and it is difficult to acknowledge them, but you double down on everything.

just_sayin

Dreamer said:

@just_sayin

I was responding to the pseudo-science article below.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/

 Peer reviewed articles are considered the best sources of information. Yet, they are by not means perfect. A quintessential example is Andrew Wakefield's Lancelot article that took years to be retracted.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nm0310-248b

I haven't looked deeply into the journal, but there are low credibility journals are run by quacks. In other words fake peer reviewed articles.  The author Jacobs is a pro-life lawyer.

The Salon article is a re-post from conversation. I grow weary of debating with you. With a firehose of falsehoods I catch 80 out of 100 and the other 20 I miss only to slowly catch later. A lie is halfway around the globe by the time truth gets its boots on. 

https://theconversation.com/defining-when-human-life-begins-is-not-a-question-science-can-answer-its-a-question-of-politics-and-ethical-values-165514

You use fake experts in this example, biologists are not qualified to answer when human life begins. In fact, this is not a scientific question at all and cannot be answer by science.

In the end you don't fight fair. Your lack of acknowledging, apologizing, and retraction of misinformation make this a pseudo-debate. I understand people make mistakes and it is difficult to acknowledge them, but you double down on everything.

The paper I cite is from the University of Chicago (the Pub Med one appears to be a different one).  It was the author's dissertation, which he got his doctorate for.  So the paper was indeed deemed credible.  I provided you 37 citations that are of biology and medical textbooks that have been used at the best universities in the US and the UK.  Also among the citations I provided quotes from the father of invitro fertilization, the father of genetics, the Roe V Wade Supreme Court ruling, and quotes from Planned Parenthood officials.  By the way, you yourself have quoted the Guttmacher Society, so I don't know why its OK for you to cite the guy, but not me. 

Who other than biologists, whose job is to study life, would be able to determine when life begins?  They appear to be the most reasonable group to ask. When life begins is a biological issue.  When life has meaning is a philosophical issue.  Could it be that you have confused the two?

Help me follow your reasoning here.  So 2 separate polls by biologists found that 95 and 96 percent believe that life begins at fertilization.  Numerous biology and medical textbooks say life begins at conception.  The greatest medical minds in genetics and obstetrics say life begins at conception.  The Supreme Court affirms that life begins at conception.  And even Planned Parenthood officials have said life begins at fertilization and yet you say I'm the science denier?  

So your Salon article (or second hand Conversation article) out weighs all of the facts I've presented?  Does that seem realistic to you?  Isn't it more likely that your political views on abortion have caused you to push an anti-science view of when human life begins?  The evidence would suggest it does.

Dee

@just_sayin


Thanks for posting its still pretty hilarious nonsense .........


Once upon a time there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night.  An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified.  But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people.  Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord.  This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.” - Luke 2:8-12 NIV

GnosticChristian

ZeusAres42 said:

@JulesKorngold

Problem of Evil, an ancient philosophical and theological debate. 

1.   and thus God cannot unilaterally prevent evil.

Would a God want to end evil and sin?

Not in Christianity as they sing of Adam's sin as a happy fault and necessary to God's plan.

The same goes for Jewry as they end with Original Virtue out of Eden, as compared to Original Sin from Christianity, even as they promote it.

Evil, so the bible says, was created by God for his pleasure. 

That seems to promote the happy fault notion.

just_sayin

GnosticChristian said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@JulesKorngold

Problem of Evil, an ancient philosophical and theological debate. 

1.   and thus God cannot unilaterally prevent evil.

Would a God want to end evil and sin?

Not in Christianity as they sing of Adam's sin as a happy fault and necessary to God's plan.

The same goes for Jewry as they end with Original Virtue out of Eden, as compared to Original Sin from Christianity, even as they promote it.

Evil, so the bible says, was created by God for his pleasure. 

That seems to promote the happy fault notion.

I think @ZeusAres42 did a good job of laying out the basic response to the question.  I'll fine tune it just a bit.  

Could God have made a world without sin?  Sure.  What kind of a world would it be?  it would need to be one without free will or love.  It would need to be without free will because anywhere there is free will means someone can make a decision that you or a God does not agree with.  The only world that you can have no sin is one where everyone is an automaton whose actions are controlled.  If love is not given by free volition and is compelled then it is not true love, so it could not exist in this world either.

Alvin Plantiga lays out this in his 'many worlds' hypothesis.  The only worlds were there can be no evil are those without free choice and love, he also considers a scenario where everyone does what they should, but it has to be a virtually no people and only lasts for a short while.  

Would a world with love be more beneficial than one without? I would think so.  

Also, evil is not a created thing.  Evil is the privation, or absence of good.  It only exists with the absence of good.  It is like darkness, in the sense that darkness is not a material thing.  It is the absence of light.  You can't know how dark it is, without knowing what light is like.  The same for evil.  It only has meaning when it is compared to good.  For evil to exist - good must exist.  So we are back to showing that evil, ultimately proves that there is a ultimate law giver who is good.  

maxx

I am saying evil is a concept; at least in the absence of a god. We deem what is bad or good, simply because we evolved specific morals and ideas, and this promoted such ideas into our thinking process. I am not claiming mass genocide is right mainly because i was taught that it was wrong. One can take a child and teach him differently. If one took an entire tribe of people that believed it is ok, then it is not evil or wrong to them.  Or take an entire society such as some religions ; who believe it is justifiable to mass murder; for them it is not evil, but acceptable. If our world of humans evolved differently, we all may think it is acceptable. In ancient times strangers were considered the enemy; they brought disease, took over territory stole resources and so on, there fore it was acceptable to kill them. Luckily the majority of humans developed and evolved better morals other wise we may have a completely different view of what is right and wrong. We also have reason, and we understand the repercussions murder may have; however if there w ere no repercussions, what then? You asked if i consider slavery moral? No, not today. However if I grew up in the periods where it was common and encouraged, then i would have a different point of view. Times change and with those changes we developed different views and morals. Take a look at the generation growing up today: rap talking about rape, murder, incest, sluts and whores and so on; kids dressed in rags with tattoos all over them, trying to emulate nasty behavior. talking about killing for the fun of it. All of this is acceptable and encouraged to them. It is what one learns from the society and people they grow up with that deems what is evil or good and that does not always reflect upon what others believe or have believed.  @just_sayin

Dee

@maxx

. Take a look at the generation growing up today: rap talking about rape, murder, incest, sluts and whores and so on; kids dressed in rags with tattoos all over them, trying to emulate nasty behavior. talking about killing for the fun of it. 


No need to bring your family into it , go easy man

just_sayin

maxx said:

I am saying evil is a concept; at least in the absence of a god. We deem what is bad or good, simply because we evolved specific morals and ideas, and this promoted such ideas into our thinking process. I am not claiming mass genocide is right mainly because i was taught that it was wrong. One can take a child and teach him differently. If one took an entire tribe of people that believed it is ok, then it is not evil or wrong to them.  Or take an entire society such as some religions ; who believe it is justifiable to mass murder; for them it is not evil, but acceptable. If our world of humans evolved differently, we all may think it is acceptable. In ancient times strangers were considered the enemy; they brought disease, took over territory stole resources and so on, there fore it was acceptable to kill them. Luckily the majority of humans developed and evolved better morals other wise we may have a completely different view of what is right and wrong. We also have reason, and we understand the repercussions murder may have; however if there w ere no repercussions, what then? You asked if i consider slavery moral? No, not today. However if I grew up in the periods where it was common and encouraged, then i would have a different point of view. Times change and with those changes we developed different views and morals. Take a look at the generation growing up today: rap talking about rape, murder, incest, sluts and whores and so on; kids dressed in rags with tattoos all over them, trying to emulate nasty behavior. talking about killing for the fun of it. All of this is acceptable and encouraged to them. It is what one learns from the society and people they grow up with that deems what is evil or good and that does not always reflect upon what others believe or have believed.  @just_sayin

@Maxx,
I think you are being consistent with your world view about how good and evil originate.  I think though that it carries with it some natural flaws.  Mainly that the most powerful person or group decides what's good or evil.  A society can decide it is OK to enslave another group, or to kill them.  The oppressor has rationalized their actions to harm and do inhumane things to the weak.  To me, though it is consistent in constructing what is evil, in the absence of a God, it seems arbitrary and only beneficial to the powerful and dominant.

GnosticChristian

just_sayin said:

 is a ultimate law giver who is good.  

Is genocide and mass murder your idea of good ultimate law, when God can cure just as easily as kill?

A good law would be cure instead of kill, for a God, as well as us. Right?

Further on standards, Yahweh first judgement call was to have Jesus die as a human sacrifice.

Is the murder of an innocent man, or God, instead of the guilty parties a good law?

maxx

it is not the most powerful in the group that decides. That is simply "going along with his ideas" even if one does not believe in them; correct.? I fi were in such an ancient tribe, i may go along with it simply out of no other choice; much in the same way we do today among our leaders. Deciding on right or wrong, will eventually depend upon the majority of the tribe; not the leader. The leader may make the decisions, however, that may not reflect upon the ideas of the rest. So at this point, we must decide how good and bad began. We can not have one unless we have the knowledge of the other. So unless we are talking about god in which he apparently gave us both; then the decision is easy. We evolved from lower animals who has no actual idea of either good  or bad. They simply would do what ever came naturally to them. As humans evolved from the lower animals, we began thinking and understanding more. Thinking, coupled with natural curiosity, as well as reasoning gave us a different role. Perhaps he understood that there were possible powers other than him. These powers would either look in favor or no favor as the case may be, depending on how the humans reacted. Perhaps one day he killed another over food. Then instantly after wards, any numerous godly actions just happen; a bolt of lightning, an earthquake, landslide; anything. These actions met the god was angry for what he did; our brain added two, he decided he did a bad thing.   any number of scenarios may have of happened' all coincidences. In ancient time, there were mostly angry gods, storms cold, water, drought and so on. Perhaps these coincidence built up, it was wrong to kill. Perhaps the first moral. Sure, it is all conjecture for no really knows how morals began; "however" they did begin Those morals developed into traits , in which evolved through to future generations, in which the idea of killing is bad. Basically, human morals were not created "because" of god, but because of a "belief" in god. @just_sayin an additional question; just how do we define morality: by whose standards, and is it based upon our actions or what we think? @just_sayin ;

Bogan

"Evil is simply extreme selfishness.   People who exhibit extreme selfishness are called Psychopaths.     Today, there are dozens of books on Psychopaths but I have read only one (and I can't remember it's name or author).   However, this book claimed that Psychopaths are around 2% of the population.     That does not mean that 2% of people are serial killers.   Psychopaths are usually intelligent and very successful people.  They make ideal con artists, corporate raiders, financial scammers, stockbrokers, financiers, woke corporate CEO's, and Democrat politicians and Presidents.  

just_sayin

GnosticChristian said:

just_sayin said:

 is a ultimate law giver who is good.  

Is genocide and mass murder your idea of good ultimate law, when God can cure just as easily as kill?

A good law would be cure instead of kill, for a God, as well as us. Right?

Further on standards, Yahweh first judgement call was to have Jesus die as a human sacrifice.

Is the murder of an innocent man, or God, instead of the guilty parties a good law?

If God intervened in every instance, then free will would not exist. Would it?  And if there isn't any real free will, then there is no love.  If a world with love in it is desirable, then free will must be permitted.  From the Christian perspective, the human soul does not cease to end at death.  So any person killed in a genocide or mass murder has not ceased to exist, but has only begun their journey on eternity.

God is not human, therefore the laws that apply to humans do not apply to HIm.  God is the creator and can do with His creation whatever He wants.  This is not evil.  If a painter destroyed his painting we would not say it was 'evil'.  It was His right to do it.

Regarding Jesus.  Man's sin was against God.  God is also the ultimate judge.  If God, as the one sinned against, is OK with Jesus death as a substitutionary sacrifice for our sins, and if Jesus was willing to die as our sacrifice, as he was, and if God, as judge, is willing to accept that as a valid means of paying the debt, then it is fine.  You and I have the opportunity to accept this offer or reject it also.  There is no coercion here.  God's offer was made willingly.  God will not force you into heaven if you do not want to go.

GnosticChristian

Bogan said:

"Evil is simply extreme selfishness.  

Human evolution is selfishness being expressed by our DNA and chemistry, first and foremost and by default as the best survival strategy.

Do you see what keeps humanity evolving and thriving, our selfishness, as evil? 

GnosticChristian

just_sayin said:

GnosticChristian said:

just_sayin said:

 is a ultimate law giver who is good.  

Is genocide and mass murder your idea of good ultimate law, when God can cure just as easily as kill?

A good law would be cure instead of kill, for a God, as well as us. Right?

Further on standards, Yahweh first judgement call was to have Jesus die as a human sacrifice.

Is the murder of an innocent man, or God, instead of the guilty parties a good law?

If God intervened in every instance, then free will would not exist. Would it?  And if there isn't any real free will, then there is no love.  If a world with love in it is desirable, then free will must be permitted.  From the Christian perspective, the human soul does not cease to end at death.  So any person killed in a genocide or mass murder has not ceased to exist, but has only begun their journey on eternity.

God is not human, therefore the laws that apply to humans do not apply to HIm.  God is the creator and can do with His creation whatever He wants.  This is not evil.  If a painter destroyed his painting we would not say it was 'evil'.  It was His right to do it.

Regarding Jesus.  Man's sin was against God.  God is also the ultimate judge.  If God, as the one sinned against, is OK with Jesus death as a substitutionary sacrifice for our sins, and if Jesus was willing to die as our sacrifice, as he was, and if God, as judge, is willing to accept that as a valid means of paying the debt, then it is fine.  You and I have the opportunity to accept this offer or reject it also.  There is no coercion here.  God's offer was made willingly.  God will not force you into heaven if you do not want to go.

But he will force hell upon many. Right?

Where is our free will then?

Regarding Jesus dying for us. 

Please get the quote that says your eternally living God can die. 

There is no such thing as well as nowhere is Jesus ever anointed to Christ.

Do some work on those and we can chat if you do not just run away.

just_sayin

GnosticChristian said:

just_sayin said:

GnosticChristian said:

just_sayin said:

 is a ultimate law giver who is good.  

Is genocide and mass murder your idea of good ultimate law, when God can cure just as easily as kill?

A good law would be cure instead of kill, for a God, as well as us. Right?

Further on standards, Yahweh first judgement call was to have Jesus die as a human sacrifice.

Is the murder of an innocent man, or God, instead of the guilty parties a good law?

If God intervened in every instance, then free will would not exist. Would it?  And if there isn't any real free will, then there is no love.  If a world with love in it is desirable, then free will must be permitted.  From the Christian perspective, the human soul does not cease to end at death.  So any person killed in a genocide or mass murder has not ceased to exist, but has only begun their journey on eternity.

God is not human, therefore the laws that apply to humans do not apply to HIm.  God is the creator and can do with His creation whatever He wants.  This is not evil.  If a painter destroyed his painting we would not say it was 'evil'.  It was His right to do it.

Regarding Jesus.  Man's sin was against God.  God is also the ultimate judge.  If God, as the one sinned against, is OK with Jesus death as a substitutionary sacrifice for our sins, and if Jesus was willing to die as our sacrifice, as he was, and if God, as judge, is willing to accept that as a valid means of paying the debt, then it is fine.  You and I have the opportunity to accept this offer or reject it also.  There is no coercion here.  God's offer was made willingly.  God will not force you into heaven if you do not want to go.

But he will force hell upon many. Right?

Where is our free will then?

Regarding Jesus dying for us. 

Please get the quote that says your eternally living God can die. 

There is no such thing as well as nowhere is Jesus ever anointed to Christ.

Do some work on those and we can chat if you do not just run away.

Hell is a place where God is not.  It is the logical place for someone to be who does not want to be with God.  If someone forced you to be with them, that would not be very loving.  God respects our choices, even when He feels they are the wrong ones.  

That would be the 'kenosis' passage in Philippians - where it says Jesus 'emptied' himself of his divinity -  Philippians 2;5-8

 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross!

Jesus as fully human, experienced death as any human would.  Again, the soul does not cease to exist at death.  I think I mentioned that before.

The term Christ in Koine greek, χριστός, means anointed one

GnosticChristian

just_sayin said:

GnosticChristian said:

just_sayin said:

GnosticChristian said:

just_sayin said:

 is a ultimate law giver who is good.  

Is genocide and mass murder your idea of good ultimate law, when God can cure just as easily as kill?

A good law would be cure instead of kill, for a God, as well as us. Right?

Further on standards, Yahweh first judgement call was to have Jesus die as a human sacrifice.

Is the murder of an innocent man, or God, instead of the guilty parties a good law?

If God intervened in every instance, then free will would not exist. Would it?  And if there isn't any real free will, then there is no love.  If a world with love in it is desirable, then free will must be permitted.  From the Christian perspective, the human soul does not cease to end at death.  So any person killed in a genocide or mass murder has not ceased to exist, but has only begun their journey on eternity.

God is not human, therefore the laws that apply to humans do not apply to HIm.  God is the creator and can do with His creation whatever He wants.  This is not evil.  If a painter destroyed his painting we would not say it was 'evil'.  It was His right to do it.

Regarding Jesus.  Man's sin was against God.  God is also the ultimate judge.  If God, as the one sinned against, is OK with Jesus death as a substitutionary sacrifice for our sins, and if Jesus was willing to die as our sacrifice, as he was, and if God, as judge, is willing to accept that as a valid means of paying the debt, then it is fine.  You and I have the opportunity to accept this offer or reject it also.  There is no coercion here.  God's offer was made willingly.  God will not force you into heaven if you do not want to go.

But he will force hell upon many. Right?

Where is our free will then?

Regarding Jesus dying for us. 

Please get the quote that says your eternally living God can die. 

There is no such thing as well as nowhere is Jesus ever anointed to Christ.

Do some work on those and we can chat if you do not just run away.

Hell is a place where God is not.  It is the logical place for someone to be who does not want to be with God.  If someone forced you to be with them, that would not be very loving.  God respects our choices, even when He feels they are the wrong ones.  

That would be the 'kenosis' passage in Philippians - where it says Jesus 'emptied' himself of his divinity -  Philippians 2;5-8

 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross!

Jesus as fully human, experienced death as any human would.  Again, the soul does not cease to exist at death.  I think I mentioned that before.

The term Christ in Koine greek, χριστός, means anointed one

"Hell is a place where God is not."

Compare that to God being omni everything and present everywhere.

God began being everywhere and everything.  What % of his kingdom does not allow him access?

What about that prophet who says he wakes up in heaven. God is there, and when he wakes in hell, God is also there.

The master of all does not give anything up.

God will force hell upon many. Right?

just_sayin

GnosticChristian said:

just_sayin said:

GnosticChristian said:

just_sayin said:

GnosticChristian said:

just_sayin said:

 is a ultimate law giver who is good.  

Is genocide and mass murder your idea of good ultimate law, when God can cure just as easily as kill?

A good law would be cure instead of kill, for a God, as well as us. Right?

Further on standards, Yahweh first judgement call was to have Jesus die as a human sacrifice.

Is the murder of an innocent man, or God, instead of the guilty parties a good law?

If God intervened in every instance, then free will would not exist. Would it?  And if there isn't any real free will, then there is no love.  If a world with love in it is desirable, then free will must be permitted.  From the Christian perspective, the human soul does not cease to end at death.  So any person killed in a genocide or mass murder has not ceased to exist, but has only begun their journey on eternity.

God is not human, therefore the laws that apply to humans do not apply to HIm.  God is the creator and can do with His creation whatever He wants.  This is not evil.  If a painter destroyed his painting we would not say it was 'evil'.  It was His right to do it.

Regarding Jesus.  Man's sin was against God.  God is also the ultimate judge.  If God, as the one sinned against, is OK with Jesus death as a substitutionary sacrifice for our sins, and if Jesus was willing to die as our sacrifice, as he was, and if God, as judge, is willing to accept that as a valid means of paying the debt, then it is fine.  You and I have the opportunity to accept this offer or reject it also.  There is no coercion here.  God's offer was made willingly.  God will not force you into heaven if you do not want to go.

But he will force hell upon many. Right?

Where is our free will then?

Regarding Jesus dying for us. 

Please get the quote that says your eternally living God can die. 

There is no such thing as well as nowhere is Jesus ever anointed to Christ.

Do some work on those and we can chat if you do not just run away.

Hell is a place where God is not.  It is the logical place for someone to be who does not want to be with God.  If someone forced you to be with them, that would not be very loving.  God respects our choices, even when He feels they are the wrong ones.  

That would be the 'kenosis' passage in Philippians - where it says Jesus 'emptied' himself of his divinity -  Philippians 2;5-8

 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross!

Jesus as fully human, experienced death as any human would.  Again, the soul does not cease to exist at death.  I think I mentioned that before.

The term Christ in Koine greek, χριστός, means anointed one

"Hell is a place where God is not."

Compare that to God being omni everything and present everywhere.

God began being everywhere and everything.  What % of his kingdom does not allow him access?

What about that prophet who says he wakes up in heaven. God is there, and when he wakes in hell, God is also there.

The master of all does not give anything up.

God will force hell upon many. Right?

I love your interest in this topic.  If gives me a chance to go deeper.  The passage you allude to is 

If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the morning, And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, Even there Your hand shall lead me, And Your right hand shall hold me. - Psalms 139:7-10

So, God is not fully absent.  You are correct in that.  So how does it fit with:

When the Lord is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might. - 2 Thessalonians 1:7–9

Glad you asked.  The term ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ κυρίου (translated above as 'from the presence of the Lord'), is literally 'from the face of the Lord.  Its a spatial reference that has its origin in oriental/eastern traditions of requests to visit with the sovereign.  So, while God exists everywhere, He will not manifest his presence in Hell in such a way that those there will be aware of Him. 

Thank you for the question.  I love getting to go a little deeper on the standard questions.

Hell, is not 'forced' upon anyone.  Hell is the punishment for sin.  it is penalty for sin.  God has provided a means to avoid hell, so it is wrong to say it is forced - sin is doing willingly.  Rejection of God's offer of forgiveness is done willingly.  

maxx

.@Bogan

GnosticChristian

just_sayin said:

Hell, is not 'forced' upon anyone. 

??

If you want to chat, you will have to make more sense.

Who would be so or mentally afflicted that they would choose hell?

Further. 

"So, while God exists everywhere, He will not manifest his presence in Hell in such a way that those there will be aware of Him."

?? How can you possibly know that?

You cannot, given that hell is a fictional place. 

Bogan

@GnosticChristian

Self interest is one of a person's most important driving forces.      Selfishness is EXTREME self interest, that is, a person lacking empathy and taking no account of anybody else's interest but there own.  Extreme self interest is usually controlled by social learning, as people are socialised as children to realise that being considered as a valued member of a self protecting group is an essential survival skill.   Some psychopaths develop extreme self interest through a lack of social learning, but some are born that way.     How such people with a genetic proneness to extreme self interest evolved to be that way is beyond me?    Humans evolved to be social animals and the existence within our genome of people who are predators upon their own communities seems to have no evolutionary purpose.          It is just a sad fact of nature that around 1 in 50 people are natural predators and lack empathy for others.    Interestingly, this 1 in 50 predator to prey ratio is the usual one for the animal world.      

just_sayin

GnosticChristian said:

just_sayin said:

Hell, is not 'forced' upon anyone. 

??

If you want to chat, you will have to make more sense.

Who would be so or mentally afflicted that they would choose hell?

Further. 

"So, while God exists everywhere, He will not manifest his presence in Hell in such a way that those there will be aware of Him."

?? How can you possibly know that?

You cannot, given that hell is a fictional place. 

I explained to you the context of the passage and what it meant.  Whether you believe hell exists does not change the meaning of the text.

So you think God should drag you kicking and screaming to heaven?  Why would he be obligated to do that? People have free will to live their lives the way they choose.  With free will comes the responsibility, or penalty, of those actions.  A just God must punish wrongdoing.  You can't say it is God's fault when the choice is ours and actions are ours.  We can either say to God now 'your will be done' and follow Him, or he will say to us 'your will be done' and we will exist eternally without Him.  

Hell is punishment for sin.  If it helps think of the crime as treason.  In essence that's what it is.  Sin is choosing to reject the ultimate ruler's rules and authority.  

I'm disappointed you didn't ask how come its just for hell to be eternal.  Come on, you got to do better on the so-called 'gotcha' questions.  Quick answer:
1) length of punishment depends on the severity of the crime and to whom it is committed.  Our sins are against an eternal God who is the soverign of the universe.  
2) Why assume that anyone would be truly repentant in hell?  There is no Holy Spirit there moving to convict people of sin.  It seems likely that our sins and hate toward God will continue there.  “People gnawed their tongues in agony and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent of what they had done” (Rev. 16:10–11)

maxx

I believe that you just agreed with an earlier point or post of mine in which you did not agree at first; it was in the post that was removed. Here you stated that children are taught to be socialized, a decent member of society; in other words, to be taught to be good; or what in bad, our naturally inherent state will simply continue to rear its ugly head. @Bogan

maxx

I am still waiting for your reply to my points. Perhaps you missed my reply? @just_sayin

Dee

@maxx

No, he's very sensibly ignoring you so quit the whining you attention seeking drama queen.

GnosticChristian

just_sayin said:

GnosticChristian said:

just_sayin said:

Hell, is not 'forced' upon anyone. 

??

If you want to chat, you will have to make more sense.

Who would be so or mentally afflicted that they would choose hell?

Further. 

"So, while God exists everywhere, He will not manifest his presence in Hell in such a way that those there will be aware of Him."

?? How can you possibly know that?

You cannot, given that hell is a fictional place. 

So you think God should drag you kicking and screaming to heaven?  Why would he be obligated to do that?

No I do not think that, so I will ignore the rest for now as it is based on a demonstrably wrong premise.

I was talking of hell and you talk of heaven. Again, try to focus.
Let me try again. Focus.

You say we sin against God. Sins have victims that can be hurt by the sin.

Do you have the power to hurt God?

Are we all making him cry in pain and anguish?

GnosticChristian

maxx said:

I believe that you just agreed with an earlier point or post of mine in which you did not agree at first; it was in the post that was removed. Here you stated that children are taught to be socialized, a decent member of society;

Decent members of society, who discriminate against LGBTQ+ without a just cause.

I call that a poor member of society.

just_sayin

maxx said:

it is not the most powerful in the group that decides. That is simply "going along with his ideas" even if one does not believe in them; correct.? I fi were in such an ancient tribe, i may go along with it simply out of no other choice; much in the same way we do today among our leaders. Deciding on right or wrong, will eventually depend upon the majority of the tribe; not the leader. The leader may make the decisions, however, that may not reflect upon the ideas of the rest. So at this point, we must decide how good and bad began. We can not have one unless we have the knowledge of the other. So unless we are talking about god in which he apparently gave us both; then the decision is easy. We evolved from lower animals who has no actual idea of either good  or bad. They simply would do what ever came naturally to them. As humans evolved from the lower animals, we began thinking and understanding more. Thinking, coupled with natural curiosity, as well as reasoning gave us a different role. Perhaps he understood that there were possible powers other than him. These powers would either look in favor or no favor as the case may be, depending on how the humans reacted. Perhaps one day he killed another over food. Then instantly after wards, any numerous godly actions just happen; a bolt of lightning, an earthquake, landslide; anything. These actions met the god was angry for what he did; our brain added two, he decided he did a bad thing.   any number of scenarios may have of happened' all coincidences. In ancient time, there were mostly angry gods, storms cold, water, drought and so on. Perhaps these coincidence built up, it was wrong to kill. Perhaps the first moral. Sure, it is all conjecture for no really knows how morals began; "however" they did begin Those morals developed into traits , in which evolved through to future generations, in which the idea of killing is bad. Basically, human morals were not created "because" of god, but because of a "belief" in god. @just_sayin an additional question; just how do we define morality: by whose standards, and is it based upon our actions or what we think? @just_sayin ;

it is not the most powerful in the group that decides. That is simply "going along with his ideas" even if one does not believe in them; correct.? I fi were in such an ancient tribe, i may go along with it simply out of no other choice; much in the same way we do today among our leaders. Deciding on right or wrong, will eventually depend upon the majority of the tribe; not the leader. The leader may make the decisions, however, that may not reflect upon the ideas of the rest.

I assume you are saying that what is good and evil are based on what the majority of a group think.

So at this point, we must decide how good and bad began. We can not have one unless we have the knowledge of the other. So unless we are talking about god in which he apparently gave us both; then the decision is easy. We evolved from lower animals who has no actual idea of either good  or bad. They simply would do what ever came naturally to them. As humans evolved from the lower animals, we began thinking and understanding more. Thinking, coupled with natural curiosity, as well as reasoning gave us a different role. Perhaps he understood that there were possible powers other than him. These powers would either look in favor or no favor as the case may be, depending on how the humans reacted. Perhaps one day he killed another over food. Then instantly after wards, any numerous godly actions just happen; a bolt of lightning, an earthquake, landslide; anything. These actions met the god was angry for what he did; our brain added two, he decided he did a bad thing.   any number of scenarios may have of happened' all coincidences. In ancient time, there were mostly angry gods, storms cold, water, drought and so on. Perhaps these coincidence built up, it was wrong to kill. Perhaps the first moral. Sure, it is all conjecture for no really knows how morals began; "however" they did begin Those morals developed into traits , in which evolved through to future generations, in which the idea of killing is bad. Basically, human morals were not created "because" of god, but because of a "belief" in god. 

So in you view there is no objective truth.  Evolution and the current values of a group determine what is right and wrong, even if that means that the majority impose something that causes pain and harm on members of a subgroup within the main group - such as slavery, torture, theft of possessions, etc.  Am I tracking with you?

additional question; just how do we define morality: by whose standards, and is it based upon our actions or what we think? 

For me morality traces back to the ultimate lawgiver.  So if there is a law by a group that violates what the ultimate lawgiver says, its still an immoral law.  Tell me, when a political party wins control of who makes the laws and they pass a law you do not agree with - are you immoral for rejecting the main group's morality?  it would seem like you are - if you believe the group decides what is right and wrong.  If good and evil are determined by the group, why do you resist what the group wants?  They have determined for you what is good and evil, right?