Two questions for theists

[Czernobog]

A couple of questions for believers.

1) If god knows everything about you, then why would he test you? He should already know how you would behave in any situation.

2) If god is all powerful, and evil exists, and god is benevolent, and caring, why does he do nothing to stop evil? God is also supposed to be a loving god, so he should and could prevent people from doing evil.

Now, I have heard, as a response to this second question, an analogy to Parents not stopping their children from engaging in less than safe behaviour - touching a live wire, touching a hot stove, that sort of thing. The argument being that a loving parent wants their children to "learn" through experience. However, I find this answer more than a little inadequate. After all, what parent, when they are confronted with a rapist throwing their daughter down, and ripping off her dress would not pounce upon the monster, stop him, and destroy him? Would a loving parent allow the rapist to complete his task, in order to allow their child to "learn" some valuable lesson? And just what lesson might that be?

So, yes. That answer to the second question is woefully lacking.

 

[Thunderbird]

Why does God allow suffering and evil? Christians can answer:

1) It is good for God to give people freedom, but some people misuse their freedom and reject Jesus' call for forgiveness, kindness, and human dignity.

2) God also gives angels freedom. Some angels are fallen (like Satan) and cause suffering - for example bringing about natural disasters.

Satan and the Corruption of Nature: Seven Arguments – ReKnew
-
Book Review: Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy - Gregory A. Boyd

Satan has suffered defeats, but he is still powerful:

Ephesians 6:12 - For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

3) Suffering can lead to good. I'm sure we can all think of times when suffering has led to personal growth. What would life be without challenges? Should we spend our lives lounging on comfy pillows eating potato chips and watching reruns while someone tells us how wonderful we are?

4) The earthly death we suffer is not the end, but the beginning.

5) God's noble goals come intertwined with suffering.

Dr. Francis Collins: the same forces that produced a life-sustaining planet including the laws of physics, chemistry, weather and tectonics, can also produce natural disasters.

Here's John Polkinghorne: Cosmic Questions - Polkinghorne: The Problem of Evil

 

[ding]

1) If god knows everything about you, then why would he test you? He should already know how you would behave in any situation.

You don't believe God exists so you don't believe he knows everything or is testing us. So you are literally making an argument you don't believe. A better question is why would you care?

But putting that aside, let's assume you do believe that God does exist and let's assume you do believe that He is omnipresent and is everywhere present with His whole being at all times and experiences time all at once and does know how everything unfolds. If we assume that the purpose of Creation is to create beings that know and create for the express purpose of progressing consciousness to that of beyond your puny consciousness, then it is all a part of that process. In other words, it is necessary for our growth that we experience life for ourselves and go through trials and tribulations to purify us much like gold is purified in the crucible of fire.

 

[Thunderbird]

The universe is wonderful and well-designed so God exists.

What is the "fine-tuning" of the universe, and how does it serve as a "pointer to God"?

We see evil and suffering so Satan (and cruel people) exist.

God brings good out of evil.

 

[ding]

2) If god is all powerful, and evil exists, and god is benevolent, and caring, why does he do nothing to stop evil? God is also supposed to be a loving god, so he should and could prevent people from doing evil.

Let's start with the fact that you have been the most precious gift in the universe; life as a being that knows and creates. Rather than complain that life is not perfect, you should be grateful for what you were given. But instead you are thankless and choose to only see the bad and ignore all of the good. So clearly you are lacking in objectivity.

Putting that aside, who are you to question the Creator of Existence? Do you think you know better than Him? What is it that you have done that makes you think you know better? Is it your belief that since life is not all honey and unicorn milk that there can be no God? This is a child's argument. The answer to this question is the same as the first; If we assume that the purpose of Creation is to create beings that know and create for the express purpose of progressing consciousness to that of beyond your puny consciousness, then it is all a part of that process. In other words, it is necessary for our growth that we experience life for ourselves and go through trials and tribulations to purify us much like gold is purified in the crucible of fire.

A man once came to a great Rabbi, very troubled. He said to the Rabbi, "Please pray to Hashem to take away my Evil Inclination. I do so many sins, and I want to stop sinning!"

The Rabbi answered, "Then what would be your purpose in this world, if you had no Evil Inclination? Your purpose in life is to overcome your personal Evil Inclination. That is what you were created for! Hashem has enough angels in heaven. He doesn't need one more. He created you human, so that you could improve yourself."

 

[JakeStarkey]

To czernobog and thunder bird: we don't know the answers.

 

[ding]

The universe is wonderful and well-designed so God exists.

What is the "fine-tuning" of the universe, and how does it serve as a "pointer to God"?

We see evil and suffering so Satan (and cruel people) exist.

God brings good out of evil.

Order from chaos.

 

[Czernobog]

The universe is wonderful and well-designed so God exists.

What is the "fine-tuning" of the universe, and how does it serve as a "pointer to God"?

We see evil and suffering so Satan (and cruel people) exist.

God brings good out of evil.

There are a number of problems with the "fine tuning" argument for God. First, the "fine tuning" argument is not an argument for a designer, but against it. Consider this analogy. Suppose that to function we required a specific level of oxygen, and that any other level would cause suffocation. This would count as "fine tuning" as it is presented in the argument. The atmospheric composition in question would be the only one capable of supporting life, and this would therefore demand “explanation”.

But even if that was true, how would this fine-tuning justify design explanations? A designer would not make it so that humans would constantly face the danger of suffocation! An intelligent designer would try, whether possible, to ensure that a given system could keep functioning under different conditions. Such is the case with humans, who can breathe in atmospheres thin or rich in oxygen. The precarity of a system’s functioning is not evidence of design, but rather of natural law.

Consider also, that we should not be surprised, or befuddled that the universe is adapted to our survival. After all, we evolved within the universe according to its parameters. Evolution tends toward adaption of life to its environment. Therefore we should be no more surprised how well we fit the universe than we are that a baked cookie fits its mold. This is known as WAP.

For further explanations of the shortcomings of the "fine tuning" defense of God I recommend Francois Tremblay's The Many Problems with the Fine-Tuning Argument.

 

[Thunderbird]

To czernobog and thunder bird: we don't know the answers.

How do you know that? lol

 

[Czernobog]

Why does God allow suffering and evil? Christians can answer:

1) It is good for God to give people freedom, but some people misuse their freedom and reject Jesus' call for forgiveness, kindness, and human dignity.

So, this all-powerful, all-knowing God gets credit for every good thing that happens, but is responsible for not a single bad thing that happens. How convenient.

2) God also gives angels freedom. Some angels are fallen (like Satan) and cause suffering - for example bringing about natural disasters.

Satan and the Corruption of Nature: Seven Arguments – ReKnew
-
Book Review: Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy - Gregory A. Boyd

Satan has suffered defeats, but he is still powerful:

Ephesians 6:12 - For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

So, whenever bad things happen, it was Satan's doing? How does that work? God is supposed to be All-Knowing. How does Satan catch God "Asleep at the wheel", and get away with causing bad shit to happen, unless God makes the conscious choice to say, "Yeah, fuck it. Let Satan have that one,"? You're going to need to reconcile this with either a) and omnipotent, omniscient God, or b) a benevolent God. If Satan gets to get away with these things, both of those conditions cannot simultaneously exist.

3) Suffering can lead to good. I'm sure we can all think of times when suffering has led to personal growth. What would life be without challenges? Should we spend our lives lounging on comfy pillows eating potato chips and watching reruns while someone tells us how wonderful we are?

I dare you to tell a rape victim that her rape is going to lead to good. And, don't give me some anecdotal tale of a rape victim who went on to have a kid, blah, blah, blah. I want you to go to a rape crisis center, video yourself telling an actual rape victim - or, better, yet, one of her family members - that God is going to make "something good" come from her rape, and post the results of that encounter online. I think the video would be most enlightening for both of us.

4) The earthly death we suffer is not the end, but the beginning.

Not only is that sophistry, it is completely irrelevant to the questions I asked.

5) God's noble goals come intertwined with suffering.

If God's goals include the rape of my 19-year-old daughter, or my having to outlive my 10-year-old son, then there is nothing noble bout those goals, and to suggest so is shameless sophistry.

 

[Boss]

A couple of questions for believers.

1) If god knows everything about you, then why would he test you? He should already know how you would behave in any situation.

2) If god is all powerful, and evil exists, and god is benevolent, and caring, why does he do nothing to stop evil? God is also supposed to be a loving god, so he should and could prevent people from doing evil.

Now, I have heard, as a response to this second question, an analogy to Parents not stopping their children from engaging in less than safe behaviour - touching a live wire, touching a hot stove, that sort of thing. The argument being that a loving parent wants their children to "learn" through experience. However, I find this answer more than a little inadequate. After all, what parent, when they are confronted with a rapist throwing their daughter down, and ripping off her dress would not pounce upon the monster, stop him, and destroy him? Would a loving parent allow the rapist to complete his task, in order to allow their child to "learn" some valuable lesson? And just what lesson might that be?

So, yes. That answer to the second question is woefully lacking.

I can't really answer as a "theist" because I am a spiritualist who believes at least 45% of ANY religious dogma is flawed because man is flawed. I believe in a God but it's more akin to Spinoza's God.

I have often asked devoutly religious people... why would God have wants? If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why would 'He' have wants, needs or desires? If God truly wanted us to worship and believe, it would be like breathing... we would have no choice. But God is a spiritual entity without humanistic attributes.... Spiritual Energy.

I've been laughed at and mocked for this but I've often compared God as Spiritual Energy to other energy sources we can relate to.... There is electricity in the outlet on the wall. You can't see it, smell it or taste it... but it's there nonetheless. You can tap in to that energy and utilize it to your advantage if you so choose... or you can live like a Mennonite. But the electricity doesn't love you... it doesn't care if you use it or not... it isn't wanting you to appreciate it or worship it. And if you don't respect it you'll pay a consequence but it's not because it's angry at you or punishing you.

 

[Czernobog]

A couple of questions for believers.

1) If god knows everything about you, then why would he test you? He should already know how you would behave in any situation.

2) If god is all powerful, and evil exists, and god is benevolent, and caring, why does he do nothing to stop evil? God is also supposed to be a loving god, so he should and could prevent people from doing evil.

Now, I have heard, as a response to this second question, an analogy to Parents not stopping their children from engaging in less than safe behaviour - touching a live wire, touching a hot stove, that sort of thing. The argument being that a loving parent wants their children to "learn" through experience. However, I find this answer more than a little inadequate. After all, what parent, when they are confronted with a rapist throwing their daughter down, and ripping off her dress would not pounce upon the monster, stop him, and destroy him? Would a loving parent allow the rapist to complete his task, in order to allow their child to "learn" some valuable lesson? And just what lesson might that be?

So, yes. That answer to the second question is woefully lacking.

I can't really answer as a "theist" because I am a spiritualist who believes at least 45% of ANY religious dogma is flawed because man is flawed. I believe in a God but it's more akin to Spinoza's God.

I have often asked devoutly religious people... why would God have wants? If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why would 'He' have wants, needs or desires? If God truly wanted us to worship and believe, it would be like breathing... we would have no choice. But God is a spiritual entity without humanistic attributes.... Spiritual Energy.

I've been laughed at and mocked for this but I've often compared God as Spiritual Energy to other energy sources we can relate to.... There is electricity in the outlet on the wall. You can't see it, smell it or taste it... but it's there nonetheless. You can tap in to that energy and utilize it to your advantage if you so choose... or you can live like a Mennonite. But the electricity doesn't love you... it doesn't care if you use it or not... it isn't wanting you to appreciate it or worship it. And if you don't respect it you'll pay a consequence but it's not because it's angry at you or punishing you.

What you're saying is that you're a deist. Still no actual evidence to support this view, but certainly less harmful than theists. I don't really have a problem with deists, as their version of "God" doesn't require them to run around converting everyone to their way of thinking, the way the majority of the theistic religions do.

 

[BreezeWood]

2) If god is all powerful, and evil exists, and god is benevolent, and caring, why does he do nothing to stop evil? God is also supposed to be a loving god, so [he] should and could prevent people from doing evil.

so [they] should and could prevent people from doing evil.


The Triumph of Good vs Evil is the goal set by the Almighty for a Spirit to be set free by their Admission to the Everlasting.

the Spirit can not exist without its physiology in Garden Earth the failsafe from their becoming a part of the Everlasting without first being freed and if accomplished will be Judged and if unfit will be destroyed. The Almighty is the gatekeeper, sink or swim or just parish with the demise of one's physiology - at least the Spirit that is born is given an opportunity of an extended existence when accomplishing the set goal of Purity, one or the other, or simply a (good) life on Earth that will come to a short end for most.

 

[Thunderbird]

The universe is wonderful and well-designed so God exists.

What is the "fine-tuning" of the universe, and how does it serve as a "pointer to God"?

We see evil and suffering so Satan (and cruel people) exist.

God brings good out of evil.

There are a number of problems with the "fine tuning" argument for God. First, the "fine tuning" argument is not an argument for a designer, but against it. Consider this analogy. Suppose that to function we required a specific level of oxygen, and that any other level would cause suffocation. This would count as "fine tuning" as it is presented in the argument. The atmospheric composition in question would be the only one capable of supporting life, and this would therefore demand “explanation”.

But even if that was true, how would this fine-tuning justify design explanations? A designer would not make it so that humans would constantly face the danger of suffocation! An intelligent designer would try, whether possible, to ensure that a given system could keep functioning under different conditions. Such is the case with humans, who can breathe in atmospheres thin or rich in oxygen. The precarity of a system’s functioning is not evidence of design, but rather of natural law.

Consider also, that we should not be surprised, or befuddled that the universe is adapted to our survival. After all, we evolved within the universe according to its parameters. Evolution tends toward adaption of life to its environment. Therefore we should be no more surprised how well we fit the universe than we are that a baked cookie fits its mold. This is known as WAP.

For further explanations of the shortcomings of the "fine tuning" defense of God I recommend Francois Tremblay's The Many Problems with the Fine-Tuning Argument.

The atheist activist you quote, who seems inclined toward LaVeyan Satanism, doesn't really understand the fine-tuning argument.

Tremblay: That objection is simply that fine-tuning is not an argument for design, but rather an argument against design! The idea of an extreme fine-tuning beyond which the target cannot exist is indicative of a precarious natural system, not of intelligent planning.

This is a poor argument. In what sense is fine-tuning precarious? A design for a car may require some precision, but that doesn't make it a poor design.

Tremblay: Another objection to the fine-tuning argument is that we should not be surprised or befuddled that the universe is adapted to our needs, since we evolved within the universe and its parameters.

The article I linked to points out the silliness of this argument.

Tremblay: In many cases, life would have evolved differently, and we would be silicon life forms asking why the universe is so perfectly adapted to our existence.

Some scientists have suggested life can be silicon-based, But theists can simply point out the universe was designed to produce silicon as well.

 

[Boss]

What you're saying is that you're a deist. Still no actual evidence to support this view, but certainly less harmful than theists. I don't really have a problem with deists, as their version of "God" doesn't require them to run around converting everyone to their way of thinking, the way the majority of the theistic religions do.

Not really a deist. A deist believes God created the universe but is not a part of it and permits administration of itself through natural laws. I believe God (Spiritual Energy) is very much a part of the universe separate from natural laws and principles.

With regard to religion, allow me to play devil's advocate here... pardon the pun... Christianity is a religion of acceptance. No one can "convert" you, it requires that you accept that Jesus was the Son of God and died on the cross for your sins. If you don't accept that, you're not a Christian.

 

[Czernobog]

2) If god is all powerful, and evil exists, and god is benevolent, and caring, why does he do nothing to stop evil? God is also supposed to be a loving god, so [he] should and could prevent people from doing evil.

so [they] should and could prevent people from doing evil.


The Triumph of Good vs Evil is the goal set by the Almighty for a Spirit to be set free by their Admission to the Everlasting.

the Spirit can not exist without its physiology in Garden Earth the failsafe from their becoming a part of the Everlasting without first being freed and if accomplished will be Judged and if unfit will be destroyed. The Almighty is the gatekeeper, sink or swim or just parish with the demise of one's physiology - at least the Spirit that is born is given an opportunity of an extended existence when accomplishing the set goal of Purity, one or the other, or simply a (good) life on Earth that will come to a short end for most.

So, basically, you are saying that the, supposedly, benevolent God, plopped us here, left us to our own devices, and whatever we do we do, it's not his problem. His attitude is, Not my circus, not my monkeys". That's the extent of it. And you still maintain that this is a benevolent God?

 

[JakeStarkey]

To czernobog and thunder bird: we don't know the answers.

How do you know that? lol

. . . because it is obvious that you don't even know the questions that need to be asked.

Since you want to quarrel, though, we can leave it at that.

 

[Czernobog]

The universe is wonderful and well-designed so God exists.

What is the "fine-tuning" of the universe, and how does it serve as a "pointer to God"?

We see evil and suffering so Satan (and cruel people) exist.

God brings good out of evil.

There are a number of problems with the "fine tuning" argument for God. First, the "fine tuning" argument is not an argument for a designer, but against it. Consider this analogy. Suppose that to function we required a specific level of oxygen, and that any other level would cause suffocation. This would count as "fine tuning" as it is presented in the argument. The atmospheric composition in question would be the only one capable of supporting life, and this would therefore demand “explanation”.

But even if that was true, how would this fine-tuning justify design explanations? A designer would not make it so that humans would constantly face the danger of suffocation! An intelligent designer would try, whether possible, to ensure that a given system could keep functioning under different conditions. Such is the case with humans, who can breathe in atmospheres thin or rich in oxygen. The precarity of a system’s functioning is not evidence of design, but rather of natural law.

Consider also, that we should not be surprised, or befuddled that the universe is adapted to our survival. After all, we evolved within the universe according to its parameters. Evolution tends toward adaption of life to its environment. Therefore we should be no more surprised how well we fit the universe than we are that a baked cookie fits its mold. This is known as WAP.

For further explanations of the shortcomings of the "fine tuning" defense of God I recommend Francois Tremblay's The Many Problems with the Fine-Tuning Argument.

The atheist activist you quote, who seems inclined toward LaVeyan Satanism, doesn't really understand the fine-tuning argument.

Tremblay: That objection is simply that fine-tuning is not an argument for design, but rather an argument against design! The idea of an extreme fine-tuning beyond which the target cannot exist is indicative of a precarious natural system, not of intelligent planning.

This is a poor argument. In what sense is fine-tuning precarious? A design for a car may require some precision, but that doesn't make it a poor design.

Tremblay: Another objection to the fine-tuning argument is that we should not be surprised or befuddled that the universe is adapted to our needs, since we evolved within the universe and its parameters.

The article I linked to points out the silliness of this argument.

Tremblay: In many cases, life would have evolved differently, and we would be silicon life forms asking why the universe is so perfectly adapted to our existence.

Some scientists have suggested life can be silicon-based, But theists can simply point out the universe was designed to produce silicon as well.

Except that theists insist that it wasn't. Theists insist that the entire universe was created for the sole purpose of us - that we are the pinnacle of that creative process. Hence, the moment that silicate life is discovered, the only way for theists to suddenly say, "Yeah, well, the Universe was created to make that happen," is for them to abandon centuries of absolute insistence that humanity is the sole reason that the universe even exists. Your "fine-tuning" argument only works if carbon-based life is the only life supported in the universe, and if we are, in fact, the only carbon-based lifeforms existing in the universe. And the entire point of the "fine-tuning" argument is just how precarious the universe is: "...if the earth were one mile closer, or one mile further from the sun...", "...if the earth had two moons, instead of one...", ""if the diameter of the Earth were half a kilometer larger....", etc. it is the argument that the universe had to be exactly as it is, for life to have evolved, so there must have been a designer. Any designer will tell you that is absolutely not true. A designer worth the title, is going to design a system that allows for success under multiple conditions,. so the universe would not have "needed" to be "exactly as it is" to support life. The fact that life evolved in a universe as it is currently configured, is just because it just so happened to occur that way. Not out of design, but out of happenstance.

 

[MaryL]

If god knows everything, why does he need tests? Why drown people in mystical floods? I love the idea of a god, especially a Christian one. I like the idea of Mythos, a belief in something outside yourself.

 

[Czernobog]

What you're saying is that you're a deist. Still no actual evidence to support this view, but certainly less harmful than theists. I don't really have a problem with deists, as their version of "God" doesn't require them to run around converting everyone to their way of thinking, the way the majority of the theistic religions do.

Not really a deist. A deist believes God created the universe but is not a part of it and permits administration of itself through natural laws. I believe God (Spiritual Energy) is very much a part of the universe separate from natural laws and principles.

With regard to religion, allow me to play devil's advocate here... pardon the pun... Christianity is a religion of acceptance. No one can "convert" you, it requires that you accept that Jesus was the Son of God and died on the cross for your sins. If you don't accept that, you're not a Christian.

Yes, and the dogma of the religion, based on several doctrinal points, is that it is incumbent upon the adherents of the religion to convince as many people as possible to "accept" that "gift". Thus it very much is a religion of conversion. Now, are Christians aggressive about it as they used to be? No. But, just because they have foregone the rack, and the heretic's fork, do not suppose that they have become any less enthusiastic about conversion.