5 ms·

From a Christian perspective - Yes - even the choking. there's an aspect of God's will that is permissive - it is thought that God permits evil because it coul

From a Christian perspective - Yes - even the choking. there's an aspect of God's will that is permissive - it is thought that God permits evil because it could allow for a higher good such as free will. Though this can't be said for sure.

Numberwang 10y ago
Nihilism, gotcha.
- vinceguidry 10y ago
  Nihilism is the position that nothing outside of the immediate has meaning. It's a polar opposite to theism, which places meaning in the hands of one or more deities.
lomnakkus 10y ago
... but then God surely can't be omnibenevolent!? (But perhaps that doctrine's been abandoned?) I'm just pointing out the contradictions in "classic" Christianity. Regardless of all that, unless we somehow come up with a coherent and agreed-upon definition of God, I don't suspect anyone's mind will be changed by logical argument. And, thus, I defeat my own argument. EDIT: I mean, it was Epicurus (~2000 years ago!) who first put this argument forward and I don't think anyone's ever come up with a good answer, so I'm forced to think that the problem is either a) coming up with a satisfactory definition of God, or b) belief in God is not determined by rational reasoning.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  > b) belief in God is not determined by rational reasoning. There are no rational arguments for a belief in God, so this is the answer. All belief in any gods is irrational by nature.
  - lomnakkus 10y ago
    I think I might agree if you changed "belief" to "faith"[1]. "Belief" can be informed by evidence (flawed or not), but "faith" is explicit belief-without-evidence. The latter -- I agree -- is a terrible idea, but presumably some of the people who have a "belief" in a higher being have some sort of evidence[2]. That doesn't mean that I would automatically dismiss them, but I would argue that they perhaps haven't learned enough about how to critically evaluate evidence. EDIT: A mildly interesting observation: There's one kind of evidence that believers use that's actually routinely accepted in a court of law, namely Eyewitness Testimony (e.g. "I saw the Virin Mary!" in the religious context). More interestingly, Eyewitness Testimony has been shown to be incredibly unreliable for finding out what really happened. [1] The distinction is somewhat technical, but it's a Big Deal(TM) in Philosophy. [2] Though, it's probably not the sort of evidence that's accepted by anyone else. (Revelation, that kind of thing.)
    - gnaritas 10y ago
      > but presumably some of the people who have a "belief" in a higher being have some sort of evidence[2] As you've noted, their evidence isn't the kind worth considering and is thus not good evidence and thus is not rational to conclude a belief with. I stand by my statement, there is not a rational reason to believe in any gods of any sort. That doesn't mean people don't believe, or don't claim they have evidence, it merely means their beliefs/evidence is not rational and is easily picked apart by actual rational thinking. There aren't any arguments for gods that aren't just bad arguments that presuppose God.
      - benjohnson 10y ago
        As a Christian, I would agree - God's revelation stands in opposition to human rationality. Examples: He demands that we love our enemies. Give away our possessions. Have faith where there is absolutely no hope in anything after our minds disintegrate after death. The Bible addresses this: "We are fools for Christ [...] We are weak, but you are strong! You are honored, we are dishonored!" 1 Corinthians 4:10
- montecarl 10y ago
  I'm not a Christian, but I've thought about this from time to time. God could be omnibenevolent, but just not on terms that humans can understand. Humans only know about what happens during life and do not understand what happens after death. There is a pretty cool short story The Egg that relates to this. I won't ruin it by trying to describe it myself. You can read it here: http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html
  - lomnakkus 10y ago
    > I'm not a Christian, but I've thought about this from time to time. God could be omnibenevolent, but just not on terms that humans can understand I thought that was the whole mandate? I mean, if $DEITY didn't have our best (human-centered) interests at heart, then was does $DEITY actually do? (EDIT: I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it. I just really don't understand the reasoning behind this and how anyone can accept the reasoning.)
visakanv 10y ago
What about aggressive childhood leukaemia? Why does God do that? Genuinely curious to understand.
- jeffcox 10y ago
  People enthralled by mysticism will find a dozen explanations for everything that contradicts their beliefs.
- azinman2 10y ago
  "God works in mysterious ways" (as does the flying spaghetti monster, the tooth fairy and santa)
- benjohnson 10y ago
  Let's make the question as hard as possible: The child dies a lingering, painful death and the child despairs. The annoying bit is that the Christian answer to this question sucks from a rational viewpoint - we humans cry out for our own justice against this God that allows such suffering. Just be mindful before you assume that Christians are completely crazy, that for from our viewpoint God suffers as well - not only does he love this child, but he also died for this child - in order that all of us could be drawn to him. The Christian term for this suffering is his "passion" - in that he longs to be with each and every one of us as an individual.
  - visakanv 10y ago
    So does that... God is some sort of... sadomasochist? (I'm sorry if that sounds insensitive, I'm really just trying to understand.)
    - benjohnson 10y ago
      Good question! It really seems that from our viewpoint is would seem so! The Christian viewpoint is that suffering will be redeemed - God promises us that he will "wipe away every tear from their eyes" (Revelation of St. John 21:4) As Christians, one of the problems that we create is that we try to make all "make sense." We can't - because we don't have the full picture. As such, I have to apologize that my answer for the problem of evil isn't satisfactory. Here's a good overview from a theological and rational viewpoint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds

Numberwang 10y ago

Nihilism, gotcha.

vinceguidry 10y ago
Nihilism is the position that nothing outside of the immediate has meaning. It's a polar opposite to theism, which places meaning in the hands of one or more deities.

lomnakkus 10y ago

... but then God surely can't be omnibenevolent!? (But perhaps that doctrine's been abandoned?) I'm just pointing out the contradictions in "classic" Christianity. Regardless of all that, unless we somehow come up with a coherent and agreed-upon definition of God, I don't suspect anyone's mind will be changed by logical argument. And, thus, I defeat my own argument. EDIT: I mean, it was Epicurus (~2000 years ago!) who first put this argument forward and I don't think anyone's ever come up with a good answer, so I'm forced to think that the problem is either a) coming up with a satisfactory definition of God, or b) belief in God is not determined by rational reasoning.

gnaritas 10y ago
> b) belief in God is not determined by rational reasoning. There are no rational arguments for a belief in God, so this is the answer. All belief in any gods is irrational by nature.
- lomnakkus 10y ago
  I think I might agree if you changed "belief" to "faith"[1]. "Belief" can be informed by evidence (flawed or not), but "faith" is explicit belief-without-evidence. The latter -- I agree -- is a terrible idea, but presumably some of the people who have a "belief" in a higher being have some sort of evidence[2]. That doesn't mean that I would automatically dismiss them, but I would argue that they perhaps haven't learned enough about how to critically evaluate evidence. EDIT: A mildly interesting observation: There's one kind of evidence that believers use that's actually routinely accepted in a court of law, namely Eyewitness Testimony (e.g. "I saw the Virin Mary!" in the religious context). More interestingly, Eyewitness Testimony has been shown to be incredibly unreliable for finding out what really happened. [1] The distinction is somewhat technical, but it's a Big Deal(TM) in Philosophy. [2] Though, it's probably not the sort of evidence that's accepted by anyone else. (Revelation, that kind of thing.)
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    > but presumably some of the people who have a "belief" in a higher being have some sort of evidence[2] As you've noted, their evidence isn't the kind worth considering and is thus not good evidence and thus is not rational to conclude a belief with. I stand by my statement, there is not a rational reason to believe in any gods of any sort. That doesn't mean people don't believe, or don't claim they have evidence, it merely means their beliefs/evidence is not rational and is easily picked apart by actual rational thinking. There aren't any arguments for gods that aren't just bad arguments that presuppose God.
    - benjohnson 10y ago
      As a Christian, I would agree - God's revelation stands in opposition to human rationality. Examples: He demands that we love our enemies. Give away our possessions. Have faith where there is absolutely no hope in anything after our minds disintegrate after death. The Bible addresses this: "We are fools for Christ [...] We are weak, but you are strong! You are honored, we are dishonored!" 1 Corinthians 4:10
montecarl 10y ago
I'm not a Christian, but I've thought about this from time to time. God could be omnibenevolent, but just not on terms that humans can understand. Humans only know about what happens during life and do not understand what happens after death. There is a pretty cool short story The Egg that relates to this. I won't ruin it by trying to describe it myself. You can read it here: http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html
- lomnakkus 10y ago
  > I'm not a Christian, but I've thought about this from time to time. God could be omnibenevolent, but just not on terms that humans can understand I thought that was the whole mandate? I mean, if $DEITY didn't have our best (human-centered) interests at heart, then was does $DEITY actually do? (EDIT: I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it. I just really don't understand the reasoning behind this and how anyone can accept the reasoning.)

visakanv 10y ago

What about aggressive childhood leukaemia? Why does God do that? Genuinely curious to understand.

jeffcox 10y ago
People enthralled by mysticism will find a dozen explanations for everything that contradicts their beliefs.
azinman2 10y ago
"God works in mysterious ways" (as does the flying spaghetti monster, the tooth fairy and santa)
benjohnson 10y ago
Let's make the question as hard as possible: The child dies a lingering, painful death and the child despairs. The annoying bit is that the Christian answer to this question sucks from a rational viewpoint - we humans cry out for our own justice against this God that allows such suffering. Just be mindful before you assume that Christians are completely crazy, that for from our viewpoint God suffers as well - not only does he love this child, but he also died for this child - in order that all of us could be drawn to him. The Christian term for this suffering is his "passion" - in that he longs to be with each and every one of us as an individual.
- visakanv 10y ago
  So does that... God is some sort of... sadomasochist? (I'm sorry if that sounds insensitive, I'm really just trying to understand.)
  - benjohnson 10y ago
    Good question! It really seems that from our viewpoint is would seem so! The Christian viewpoint is that suffering will be redeemed - God promises us that he will "wipe away every tear from their eyes" (Revelation of St. John 21:4) As Christians, one of the problems that we create is that we try to make all "make sense." We can't - because we don't have the full picture. As such, I have to apologize that my answer for the problem of evil isn't satisfactory. Here's a good overview from a theological and rational viewpoint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds