The existence of God

Post Reply New Topic

The religious texts register somewhat incoherent on the topic of evil and I think that's where the theologians get stuck. The implicit notion is, as Lucifer fell to it, that its a possibility or option that exists with or without him. Because of that I think the monist outlook is probably one of the better notions out there - ie. good vs. error/absurdity rather than needing to see it - in source - as purely a God vs. Satan 'game' so to speak (the dualist view).

On the contrary, I think the religious text is consistent about good vs. evil, if we're talking strictly about the Bible, that is. I've never thought of it as some kind of "game." The short definition of good is "that which is pleasing to God." The short definition of evil is the opposite. Anything contrary to God's will as it is knowable is sin, and anything less than perfection is condemnation.

So no, if it hadn't been Lucifer/Satan, the possibility of sin/evil would still exist. Satan didn't create evil, nor did God. Sin/evil is the end result of thought/action contrary to God's desire. Adam was only aware of ONE sin, and as far as God was concerned that was all that there need be. Satan tempted Eve by contradicting the idea that there'd even be punishment for sin. In the end, we know that the only sin that Adam and Eve were even capable of committing was realized, and considering what the sin was specifically, there really couldn't have been anything worse--knowing good from evil and having to live life according to that knowledge, even to the extent that we have to pass on that knowledge to our progeny along with the same responsibilities and decisions. With that kind of knowledge, Adam and Eve became aware of other things that were shameful--namely nakedness, and we can read the Bible to see how other kinds of sin came into the world from that origin.

What little we seem to know about Satan is that he was a creation of God and was the highest ranking in Heaven. Satan's desire to basically BE God was the cause of his fall, having full knowledge of God and who He was and STILL acting in rebellion. It seems the angels, while they are given free will (that is, to act on their own volition, to come and go as they please), aren't given the choice of whether to know God or not. Human beings, by contrast, are born with a rebellious nature, intrinsically knowing or at least discerning God's will as it relates to right and wrong, good and evil. Humans have experienced God in various ways over time, and even having a real, undeniable, incontrovertible manifestation of God among them doesn't seem to have changed our minds. Hence the choice of whether to acknowledge God or not.

On the handwaving of theologians, I think it depends on the issue. I think more often certain issues are not worth addressing, so you'll need to be specific. Faith does not necessarily have to be divorced from reason, but a theologian has to be concerned with his audience. Most churches I've ever attended had a majority within the congregation more concerned with all the logic it takes to repair an automotive engine than the intricacies of philosophy as it relates to religion. All they know, and all they NEED to know is God saw fit for them to wake up that morning. Your typical bachelor/master's degree divinity student won't be thinking quite that far ahead, and their congregations view them as more "human" than those with Ph.D.'s. I even know one or two who are gifted expositors of the Bible and never took ONE college course in it. One statement I've heard even a Ph.D. make (and something most of us "commoners" can relate to) is that the mystery of God is beyond much of human understanding. We don't understand HOW it is God can make the world in 6 days except that God is powerful enough to make it happen--as to whether the Earth is 6,000 years old or 6 billion years old, perhaps only God Himself can understand how it all happened (the YC 6,000-year argument is terribly inflexible). We can justifiably handwave something like that because it isn't terribly relevant to faith, and endlessly debating it distracts from the REAL point of the Biblical message--that all are sinners in need of atonement and that Christ provided a perfect sacrifice. All that is left is for the sinner to believe in Christ and accept His atonement as a free gift or spend the rest of his life looking for some other way that doesn't exist.

I'd personally avoid handwaving if I could. If you ask me for an honest answer on some things, I'll just simply say "I don't know," but if there's a specific issue you feel has been "waved" I wouldn't mind at least trying to address it. But certainly the existence of evil in the world is some evidence in favor of God--you can't define evil without a sense of morality, and you can't examine morality without uncovering its source.

If you accept evil. I don't a serial killer or someone who blasphemes is no more evil than a flat tire or a rusted muffler. It's just a bad piece of equipment and some things we can fix and some things are still beyond our technology.

That would imply our moral judgments are little more than expressions of opinion or approval/disapproval. I am inclined to that point of view. I do not believe there are any moral facts nor do I believe human morality can be derived logically from physical laws.

ruveyn

Perhaps not through physical laws, but rather through direct revelation (e.g., like at Sinai.) However, I think that to a degree the moral laws are "written on our hearts" also, even though they are not derivable through scientific means alone.

Even somebody with your rather peculiar look at the world should be convinced at this point that a heart is a muscle for pumping blood, not a factory of ideas. If you don't accept scientific methods I cannot find any sense in conversing with you.

I've always said that I'd believe in God if someone showed me proof. This has yet to happen, and considering that the very idea of God is a protean concept, I don't think it ever will.

Meh. I was just repeating my answer to the poll.
The key word = 'invisible'. -.-
And I prefer the flying spaghetti monster anyways. -__-

Last edited by jmnixon95 on 23 Jun 2010, 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Yess! ALL HAIL THE FSM! HE IS REAL!

In language there is such thing as a figurative usage of words. "Heart" is not referring to the blood-pump in our chests, but rather a component of our minds.

And since you are as much in the dark as any of those old primitives several thousand years ago you appropriately use their linguistic misdirections because you know nothing about the real mechanics of the mind.

"Beowulf word-hoard unlocked", from the poem Beowulf did not mean that he had an actual physical hoard of words, but that he started speaking that which he had held back from saying before. Similarly, the usage of the word "digital" in electronics does not mean that computers or cameras have fingers. "Language" is a word which refers, in meaning, to speech, but actually means "tongue" in most languages other than English. "Sword" in the Bible does not just mean a two-edged bladed meelee combat weapon, but it also can mean an entire army or war or sets of wars as in "I will send the sword against you and you will be remembered no more."

Very good. Now we both understand that your words are so ambiguous that they convey nothing precise enough to convince me you have even the faintest concept of what you are talking about. You seem to have accepted my analysis.

You seem to lack the comprehension of how language works.

Flying Spaghetti Monster vs Invisible Pink Unicorn
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZK5tCY39x0[/youtube]

That may be, but that's not in question here. You don't understand how language doesn't work.