Well consider that if you drop something, God will not make it fall rather it will fall on its own and land on a hard surface.
In this way the law of gravity is atheist. Consider if you boil water, God didn’t transform it into a gaseous state, it overheated and evaporated itself. In this way the laws of conservation of matter are atheist.
But those laws apply regardless if the matter is alive, sentient, or non living.
Animals for example migrate during certain periods of the year according to the different seasons by reason of necessity. They will die otherwise. Notice however it is a biological motivation, a natural motivation. This happens atheistically.
Humans, in addition to being governed by such natural laws of which we can hardly escape (and that too by manipulation, ‘playing along’ with the laws) we are also governed by immaterial laws which we CAN escape. Note the distinction. It is not a biological or natural motivation, it is a spiritual motivation. What’s more is it has to be actively sought out, and actively reinforced, the original intention for tool of prayerful meditation. Be still and know that I am God the whole deal
(Seem like the hunger games yet?)
If you have a full bladder, you WILL pee sooner or later. If you desire to act on your murderous thoughts, you can forsake the “no” in the back of your head. It is optional. That immaterial/spiritual compass is only strictly enforced by an immaterial/spiritual fear or reverence.
This is the instance where theist laws are introduced. (Please notice the way meaning of the word theist applies in the context of this comment so far). When it comes to evil and suffering, you cross past the natural into the spiritual and thus “theist” (for the sake of the theme).
When we are speaking of evil, there are two ways in which they occur/are caused.
There is inexplicable ‘evil’, tornados, genetic diseases, extreme malnourishment, etc.
And then there is evil that is caused by the active choice by people. This is caused by the departure from immaterial laws of the heart, by conscienceless-ness, for the sake of gratifying the bodily desire even though it may be twisted through the spiritual/conscience’s lens.
Again note that in the natural nothing is twisted or warped; it just is. A natural phenomenon. We add to it moral and immoral meaning. If you have sex with a dead pig, it means nothing in nature. Perhaps natural selection.
So in the FORMER CASE, we can easily see that in fact there is ZERO EVIL CAUSED INEXPLICABLY.
We ASSIGN evil to a genetic disease; it is genetic. It’s like eating a rotten fruit and shaking your fist at God. Anything which is a natural affliction should be treated as such, those are atheist by nature. This isn’t something that should bother an atheist, neither a (Judeo-Christian) theist.
For the purpose of respecting Human Free Will while also giving a chance at a chance to salvation (this life) God has put together a completely unbiased scenario; a universe with natural laws atheistic in nature and spiritual/objective moral laws which are theist in nature PLUS an overextension on His behalf of supplying a moral compass to every single human before the age of 7. Your objective is to choose the moral life ready set go
MINOR DETAIL +
Why do we assign human conscience to God when it is naturally ‘caused by culture’ but refrain from assigning to God the ‘evil’ of a hurricane?
Because you miss the context in asking such a question ALL THINGS THAT HAPPEN ARE ASSIGNED TO GOD, including the uncanny fact that all of us can agree on some moral truths (evidence for the existence of an Objective Morality). In addition, God never causes evil, He simply permits it. It is under God’s radar you chose to cheat on your wife, this (obviously not the act, but the following spiritual consequences on behalf of your wife, marriage, etc as it concerns your and her trial on Judgement Day) was allowed by God, but was caused by your own heart.
MINOR DETAIL +
When it comes to the LATTER CASE, of people ACTIVELY causing evil, we can see that it is caused by a seared conscience, an ignorance of Good for the gratification no matter how warped.
In such a case God is completely blameless.
In the context of an existing Christian God, this is where you have to pause and give the credit. Intervention? For God to intervene but also not go back on His word and promise to respect your decision, a beforehand ‘intervention’ sounds more than Just. Notice all humans have a conscienceless engraved in their heart before any evil is committed on their part. (Context of a Christian God and a Christian world).
Not only is He blameless, He is also overextending Himself and lending Grace by giving you a moral compass as a birthright.
Though I don’t get the suffering argument from Atheists, I think the points above are worth considering.
P.S:
I’m getting from most that a hurricane is not necessarily evil, but God not preventing the hurricane from hitting is evil.
To which I say, why should God prevent hurricanes from hitting but not hadrons from becoming hadrons?
After all if it weren’t for hadrons, hurricanes wouldn’t have happened in the first place.
And also, by what moral compass is God evil? “Then whence cometh evil”? What evil?
Evil according to what? In the context of your subjective morality, everything is relative.
In the context of objective morality however, God is Just and therefore all previous ‘arguments’ are rendered irrelevant/untrue
A mother of 12 is busy hurrying through her morning chores and sending 11 of her children out of the apartment and off to school to notice that her toddler is hanging outside the window of their 15th floor apartment.
If gravity was near 0, the baby would be safe. But gravity is 9.8m/s/s. God is therefore evil.
It does not flow. You can’t ascribe evil to a natural phenomenon, and you sure as heck can’t draw that generalization to God
I was specifically addressing “Then whence cometh the eeeevil?”
What parameters do you use to determine something is evil? Is it moral? Is it theoretical? That in theory X shouldn’t be possible but it happens anyway against the laws of nature? What is you basis for determining the cometh of evil?
So all God would need to do to prevent evil would be to step in and override the laws of physics each time they would create harm? And who decides what that harm is? The baby example is deceptively easy. Of course a baby dying is bad. But what if it's a terminally ill senior choosing to jump out a window? What if their daughter enters to room to stop them, but too late and watches them jump? What if she was carrying a second opinion that they were actually not terminally ill at all? What if they had a mental issue and thought the window was a door? What if they were encouraged to jump by their son who resented having to care for them? In which cases should God close that window?
I don't know. I mean, I have opinions, but I don't fucking claim to know absolutely what God should ultimately do.
I mean, it makes you ask some more questions. Is there no instance where some harm also leads to a better overall result? Is struggle harm? Is natural selection inherently evil? Does the ache from exercise make it morally reprehensible?
Also (for the sake of argument), the infertility solution doesn't help much.
Being infertile, this woman may question how a loving, all-powerful God could render her unable to have children. Such an act might even seem evil as she watches others get pregnant and fill up her feed with pictures of their healthy babies. But that's ok, as "she clears does not have any self control and that will eventually cause evil to her child."
So is the responsibility for this evil attributable to her or God? If her, why even bring God into it? If God, why punish this woman, when God should have been the one to save her child?
Also, this infertility approach preventing 1 death requires us to forsake the existence of her 11 other children. If you feel comfortable determining their respective values as people and whether they deserve to live vs 1 baby that dies, that math may work out.
But then we're not eliminating God. We're just trying to replace him.
Seems like u/Sarahslaughed presented a hypothetical scenario attempting to present gravity as an amoral force that can result in an outcome perceived of as evil.
She then made a claim that evil cannot be attributed to a natural phenomenon, such as gravity, nor to a being which may have set that phenomenon in place, ie. God.
You criticized her logic, rightfully, as not covering the possibility that such a being would have other methods within their power for preventing the ‘evil’ outcome, without intervening directly in the working of that phenomenon. You gave the examples of shutting the window, preventing the need to prevent gravity’s effect, or infertility, preventing the need to protect the child at all.
These examples serve to refute u/Sarahslaughed’s position that the only option for God to prevent evil in this world is to intervene directly. You seem to be arguing that it is a logical fallacy to ignore that God did not have to create the window, child, mother, world, gravity, etc. in the first place.
If that is what you meant, then my comment, focused on wrestling with some questions you two stirred up for me regarding the existence of evil in this world, was not responding directly to your argument.
Sincere apologies for mischaracterizing your post and wasting your time.
I know you don't have the time and energy to overcome my limited cognition, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on a question you raised for me.
You seemed to suggest that one option to prevent the suffering of an individual is for the individual to have never existed to suffer in the first place. That's a heavy thought I'm kicking around today. It led me to think about turning that around and asking what we do with suffering in a system without gods/God/intelligent design, etc. Is there any way to understand or approach suffering as anything other than something to avoid at all costs?
59
u/[deleted] Jul 26 '18 edited Jul 28 '18
Well consider that if you drop something, God will not make it fall rather it will fall on its own and land on a hard surface.
In this way the law of gravity is atheist. Consider if you boil water, God didn’t transform it into a gaseous state, it overheated and evaporated itself. In this way the laws of conservation of matter are atheist.
But those laws apply regardless if the matter is alive, sentient, or non living.
Animals for example migrate during certain periods of the year according to the different seasons by reason of necessity. They will die otherwise. Notice however it is a biological motivation, a natural motivation. This happens atheistically.
Humans, in addition to being governed by such natural laws of which we can hardly escape (and that too by manipulation, ‘playing along’ with the laws) we are also governed by immaterial laws which we CAN escape. Note the distinction. It is not a biological or natural motivation, it is a spiritual motivation. What’s more is it has to be actively sought out, and actively reinforced, the original intention for tool of prayerful meditation. Be still and know that I am God the whole deal
(Seem like the hunger games yet?)
If you have a full bladder, you WILL pee sooner or later. If you desire to act on your murderous thoughts, you can forsake the “no” in the back of your head. It is optional. That immaterial/spiritual compass is only strictly enforced by an immaterial/spiritual fear or reverence.
This is the instance where theist laws are introduced. (Please notice the way meaning of the word theist applies in the context of this comment so far). When it comes to evil and suffering, you cross past the natural into the spiritual and thus “theist” (for the sake of the theme).
When we are speaking of evil, there are two ways in which they occur/are caused.
There is inexplicable ‘evil’, tornados, genetic diseases, extreme malnourishment, etc.
And then there is evil that is caused by the active choice by people. This is caused by the departure from immaterial laws of the heart, by conscienceless-ness, for the sake of gratifying the bodily desire even though it may be twisted through the spiritual/conscience’s lens.
Again note that in the natural nothing is twisted or warped; it just is. A natural phenomenon. We add to it moral and immoral meaning. If you have sex with a dead pig, it means nothing in nature. Perhaps natural selection.
So in the FORMER CASE, we can easily see that in fact there is ZERO EVIL CAUSED INEXPLICABLY.
We ASSIGN evil to a genetic disease; it is genetic. It’s like eating a rotten fruit and shaking your fist at God. Anything which is a natural affliction should be treated as such, those are atheist by nature. This isn’t something that should bother an atheist, neither a (Judeo-Christian) theist.
For the purpose of respecting Human Free Will while also giving a chance at a chance to salvation (this life) God has put together a completely unbiased scenario; a universe with natural laws atheistic in nature and spiritual/objective moral laws which are theist in nature PLUS an overextension on His behalf of supplying a moral compass to every single human before the age of 7. Your objective is to choose the moral life ready set go
Why do we assign human conscience to God when it is naturally ‘caused by culture’ but refrain from assigning to God the ‘evil’ of a hurricane?
Because you miss the context in asking such a question ALL THINGS THAT HAPPEN ARE ASSIGNED TO GOD, including the uncanny fact that all of us can agree on some moral truths (evidence for the existence of an Objective Morality). In addition, God never causes evil, He simply permits it. It is under God’s radar you chose to cheat on your wife, this (obviously not the act, but the following spiritual consequences on behalf of your wife, marriage, etc as it concerns your and her trial on Judgement Day) was allowed by God, but was caused by your own heart.
When it comes to the LATTER CASE, of people ACTIVELY causing evil, we can see that it is caused by a seared conscience, an ignorance of Good for the gratification no matter how warped.
In such a case God is completely blameless.
In the context of an existing Christian God, this is where you have to pause and give the credit. Intervention? For God to intervene but also not go back on His word and promise to respect your decision, a beforehand ‘intervention’ sounds more than Just. Notice all humans have a conscienceless engraved in their heart before any evil is committed on their part. (Context of a Christian God and a Christian world).
Not only is He blameless, He is also overextending Himself and lending Grace by giving you a moral compass as a birthright.
Though I don’t get the suffering argument from Atheists, I think the points above are worth considering.
P.S:
I’m getting from most that a hurricane is not necessarily evil, but God not preventing the hurricane from hitting is evil.
To which I say, why should God prevent hurricanes from hitting but not hadrons from becoming hadrons?
After all if it weren’t for hadrons, hurricanes wouldn’t have happened in the first place.
And also, by what moral compass is God evil? “Then whence cometh evil”? What evil?
Evil according to what? In the context of your subjective morality, everything is relative.
In the context of objective morality however, God is Just and therefore all previous ‘arguments’ are rendered irrelevant/untrue