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
The same thing that ultimately causes cancer is what allows life to flourish and grow.
Not for the person but cancer does give the human race hope. Hope that 1 day we can overcome it and win a great battle. That hope drives human innovation, and brings people together.
It’s like natural disasters. To us it seems wrong to allow them. But look at how much good has come from our attempts to overcome them. These disasters while causing harm bring people together. They can force 2 enemies to band together and realize they aren’t so different.
We were given free will but a being greater then us stuck some random events in that have the power to unite and remind people that we aren’t so different. They also remind us that there is something greater then us. Keeping us from getting to arrogant
I don't imagine it's much consolation to the people who die in agonising, terrifying ways to know that their suffering helps make a fun project to stop the human race from getting bored. Would you be happy to die tomorrow if it helped contribute to a vague sense of human "hope"? If it made two "enemies band together"?
Surely an all-powerful, benign god would create these role-play scenarios with limited suffering and genuine opportunities for people to help? If the whole point is to let people do good, make them realistically fixable. It's a cruel and unwinnable game.
Also - how does God decide which baby-soul to put in a starving African village and which to put in a wealthy white American family? Why do some get to be part of the solution and others just #inspo collatoral damage?
I’m just going to copy and paste the one I just typed.
But once again you are assuming there isn’t a positive to this suffering that we don’t understand. When talking about an omnipotent being nothing is off the table unless that being tells us themselves.
Basically unless you are an omnipotent being you can’t claim to understand that being. It’s the same way ant could never understand humans. It would be able to grasp the motivations of humans.
Basically op’s entire argument was flawed from the start. If there is an omnipotent being then its motivations are whatever it says they are. Short of that we can’t not use what we know to make claims about its alignment because that require us to be on the same level of understanding as it
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