You're viewing a single thread.
This is an awful argument lmao
Not really. The quality of an argument is in its ability to change the mind/behavior of the person you're debating with, and the Epicurian paradox is one of the best tools we have to spur some critical thought from the religious crowd. It takes Christian lore at face value, and pitches it against itself. Using their own material as an argument against that same material will function as a better argument than things like scientific facts cuz they just ignore facts.
...then again, they ignore their own lore too, but shining the spotlight on that has its own value.
Anywho, it's worded awkwardly in the OP to sound old (I'm assuming it isn't a direct translation, judging by the other comments here), but it goes down a bit easier when you start with how Christians present their god: he is 1) Absolute good / complete absence of evil, 2) All powerful / reality is as he wills, and 3) All knowing / aware of everything happening in his universe.
The snag is that evil also plays a large role in their lore; and in current current events (turn the news on for 10 minutes and you'll see no shortage of evil) - but how can evil exist under a god described above?
-
If he has the capability to stop it, he's chosen not to and is therefore himself some degree of evil.
-
If he wants to stop it but can't, he isn't all powerful.
-
If he can and wants to stop it, but isn't aware it's happening, then he's
a fucking idiotnot all knowing.
Therefore, Christianity is not honest about the nature of their own god. And that revelation is a powerful argument.
-
because?
Because how do you know our definition of evil is actually correct or valid in any external context not involving humans? Why would a god consider death or pain or suffering evil?
A child could call you evil for not giving it all the candy that's in the box. For restricting its playtime. Why couldn't we be the same with death and pain and so on compared to a god?
Of course that doesn't apply to the Christian god that tells what is good or evil and shit.
It's always possible that young children losing their eyesight due to parasitic infections is actually a good thing, but I still feel it's a reasonable assumption that only an evil god could invent that.
- Evil is caused by humans
- If we were incapable of evil we would be incapable of free thought and reasoning and goodness
- Heaven and hell will settle the balance and the holy books direct humanity to goodness
- This argument has been so thoroughly debunked it's pure and simple ignorance to espouse it without at least addressing the above points
-
God created humans. Why didn't he create us without any evil?
-
Why? God created the concepts of evil and free thought. He could have made free thought possible without evil. Why did he choose not to? Or is there some higher truth of good and evil, which god is bound to?
-
What?
-
Those points make unfounded assumptions about the nature of good and evil. That's literally the point of the argument. You say "things have to be this way, it can't work otherwise", but god made all those rules, right?
Free thought is possible without evil. Lots of people just choose to be evil and greedy and violent. Lots of people also choose to support one another and build societies, or advance scientifically, or study ecology, or advocate for human rights
Evil will be punished by hell and goodness and patience will be rewarded, the balance will be settled by a divine observer
Either god exists and we should play by his rules and act in an objective morality (feed the poor don't be greedy golden rule etc) or he doesn't exist and the world is this way because it is
Pain makes us sad, beauty makes us happy. It's an objective undeniable truth that increasing happiness and minimizing pain for others is a good and moral act, why imagine anything different?
Sorry, I think I'm not understanding your point correctly. I agree that we should try to act morally, but that isn't related to the argument of the post.
Very concretely: Your god created everything, including the very concept of evil. Since he is all-powerful, he must be able to create the exact same world, but without evil. We agree so far, right?
So why isn't the logical conclusion that he chose to create evil?
Was the invention of electricity evil because it created the electric chair or was it good because it created home heating? God created free will, we chose to do evil with it. Being prescient he would have known what we would choose to do with it and still created us anyway, allowing both good and evil to happen. Can we agree on that part?
Tell me how evil was his creation and not ours. Give me an example of such a thing
Being prescient he would have known what we would choose to do with it and still created us anyway, allowing both good and evil to happen. Can we agree on that part?
Yes, we can agree on that! Since your god is all-mighty, he specifically chose to create us so we'd create the electric chair. He could have created us slightly differently so we'd still create home heating without creating the electric chair, but he chose to make us do both.
So god created all evil. After all, he could have created us without the capacity for evil. Had he not created the concept of evil, we wouldn't even have the option.
Tell me how evil was his creation and not ours. Give me an example of such a thing
God created us and gave us the capacity to do evil. He could have created us without the capacity to do evil (since he's all-mighty). Literally everything is his creation, is it not?
Do you believe humanity is all evil with no redeeming qualities? If yes then I get why you would think that. If no, then he created us for BOTH the good and the bad
Anyone can choose to stop doing evil. If they have free will then it's a choice they made, not god. Can we agree on that?
No, I don't think that humanity is all evil. But I feel like you're dodging the central question I'm asking, because you keep bringing up that we can also do good.
God created good and evil, and he created us with the capacity to do good and evil, while he had the explicit knowledge that we'd do evil. He could have also chosen to only create good, and to create us with the capacity to only do good. Why did he create both good and evil, instead of only good?
Initially you stated that good and evil are necessary for free will, but you immediately backtracked on that. Since then you keep repeating that humans do evil, but that's not relevant to what I'm asking. Please try not to use any allegories or to reframe my question. Just try to answer: "God gave us the capacity to do evil, because..."
God gave us the capacity to do evil because he gave us free will. Giving free will meant doing evil is inevitable and anything different wouldn't be free will
He created humans with the capacity to do evil, therefore he created evil. I understand the central point, I'm disputing your belief that it's possible to have free will and never do evil
Can't really represent this point without an allegory but are social insects (ants, bees, wasps, termites etc) represent always doing good? A river? Stellar fusion?
-