The Problem of Natural Evil... Again

5wize said:
The Christian meaning for the term. We are referring to that. But often you play childishly in the seams of definitions

You are one of the ugliest people inside I think I have ever interfaced with.
Click to expand...
No, he just has no answer for actual reasoned discussion and hides it behind mockery and derision. Pity him.
 
stiggy wiggy said:
OK, Electric Skeptic: START ADDRESSING. I'll wait here.
Click to expand...
Already done so, on the other thread. I'll post it again here, if you like.

Ever hear of reaping what you sow? I'm sure I read the concept in some book or other...maybe you've heard of it, too. That's what you're doing now. Instead of addressing the subject, you mock and deride those who attempt to discuss it...this is you reaping that which you sowed. People noting that you never address the subject - you just mock those who attempt to. And now you complain about people noting that! lol.

I'll add...why would I even try to 'engage' someone who has repeatedly shown that they are completely uninterested, unwilling and/or unable to discuss the subject? Every attempt to do so has led to you mocking and deriding the people who actually attempt to discuss it. Why on earth would anybody try to 'engage' you on the topic again?
 
Electric Skeptic said:
And I've been promised by a Muslim friend of mine that if I do not give up on seeking Allah, I will eventually find him.

why is your promise any more credible than his?
Click to expand...

The point is we actually both agree—whatever God is out there, it will answer anyone who seeks it. Does that mean I don't think this other guy is genuinely seeking? Well, his journey isn't over yet and I can't know that for certain, but if he is sincere he will end up with the right religion. Surprising thing—people aren't always as sincere as they think they are. The fact is, you know when you've found something—but you don't always know when your simply substituting that for some other easier answer.
 
Dizerner said:
The point is we actually both agree—whatever God is out there, it will answer anyone who seeks it.
Click to expand...
Well...yes, to a point. That point is that you both think that they other bloke's god doesn't exist, and it's your god that will resopnd.
Dizerner said:
Does that mean I don't think this other guy is genuinely seeking? Well, his journey isn't over yet and I can't know that for certain, but if he is sincere he will end up with the right religion.
Click to expand...
Which he might well say of you.
Dizerner said:
Surprising thing—people aren't always as sincere as they think they are. The fact is, you know when you've found something—but you don't always know when your simply substituting that for some other easier answer.
Click to expand...
Which, again, could equally apply to you.

Again, why is your promise about the Christian God any more credible than his about the Muslim god? Or a Hindus, or any other religion's similar comment?
 
The Pixie said:
There have been a couple of threads recently that dance around this subject - this one by stiggy explicitly addresses why God allows things that are just mildly bad, while this one merely states God did not create the universe flawed, and the OP insists we not discuss the real problem. So I thought I would start a thread to hit is head on.

By natural evil I mean bad things happening outside man's control. These are events where the free will defence fails because mankind had no choice. In the atheist world-view, these things are not evil, as they is no agency behind them, but in the theist view they are, or so it seems to me.

A volcane, hurricate or tidal wave that causes great destruction and kills thousands an example of natural evil, in contrast to the Holocaust, which was clearly engineered by man. While there are ways the damage from a volcane, hurricate or tidal wave can be mitigated, if God exists then these are events God chose to allow to happen (or perhaps even caused himself; Isaiah 45:7) that he could have prevented without restricting anyone's free will.

One argument I have seen is that God does these things because of the joy they bring. To be clear, this was specifically with reference to childhood cancer ("Cancer brought my wife and me joy we would never have had otherwise"). I am doubtful natural disasters or childhood cancer bring joy; I strongly suspect those involved would be far more happy if these disasters did NOT happen.

To be clear, the point here is not to blame God for bad things, but to look at whether Christianity is consistent with what we see of the world - to consider whether or not God exists. I was raised in a Christian family, and this was very much the issue that initially persuaded me Christianity is wrong. In many years of discussion at CARM I have yet to see a satisfactory answer to this issue.

I appreciate there is nothing new in this topic; people have debated the "Problem of Evil" for a long time. This should mean the answer is out there and well-known - if there is a good answer. And I will say up front that I have no clear dividing line between what counts as a disaster that a morally good God should prevent, and what is just a mild inconvenience, but I do not think that that is required to be sure that natural disasters that cause widespread destruction and loss of life, and fatal childhood diseases such as cancer are awful events that cause great suffering and that one might expect a perfectly good and loving God to prevent.
Click to expand...
For the life of me, i cannot figure why an atheist would consider a hurricane or a tornado as evil. Was the storms on Mars which rendered the rovers inoperable also evil?
 
Harry Leggs said:
For the life of me, i cannot figure why an atheist would consider a hurricane or a tornado as evil. Was the storms on Mars which rendered the rovers inoperable also evil?
Click to expand...
The “evil” is not the wind or water but the destruction it causes to innocent people. I was in SouthEast Asia when the tsunami wiped out over 200,000 innocent lives sleeping in their beds. Anyone who denies that a tsunami wiping out 200K lives is a natural evil is a blockhead.
 
docphin5 said:
The “evil” is not the wind or water but the destruction it causes to innocent people.
Click to expand...
So where is the evil at?
docphin5 said:
I was in SouthEast Asia when the tsunami wiped out over 200,000 innocent lives sleeping in their beds.
Click to expand...
You survived?
docphin5 said:
Anyone who denies that a tsunami wiping out 200K lives is a natural evil is a blockhead.
Click to expand...
Well i think you are pulling it all out of context here and taking cheap shots. :) You have not explained evil within the context of atheism and omitted parts of my post. (like the rover on Mars being put out of action by a storm. I am sure some may have been emotionally devastated by that but is it evil?)) I am not seeing where your example, filled with emotional baggage as it is, constitutes evil since death is natural and so is catastrophic events within the context of atheism. What exactly do you think life owes you? Also the name calling says more about you than it does about me. Anyways, being called a blockhead by you means nothing to me. I have read your posts. :rolleyes:
 
docphin5 said:
Anyone who denies that a tsunami wiping out 200K lives is a natural evil is a blockhead.
Click to expand...
Anyone claiming "natural evil" is a blockhead if they cannot prove it in some rational manner.

Is the water evil? The earthquake? The earth for quaking?

Is there like a pocket of evil inside the earth that leaks out occasionally?

This is an interesting subject, tell me more.
 
Furion said:
Anyone claiming "natural evil" is a blockhead if they cannot prove it in some rational manner.

Is the water evil? The earthquake? The earth for quaking?

Is there like a pocket of evil inside the earth that leaks out occasionally?

This is an interesting subject, tell me more.
Click to expand...
From Merriam Webster

evil
noun
Definition of evil (Entry 2 of 3)
1a: the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing
b: a cosmic evil force
2: something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity

Natural evil
A natural force that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity.

‘Nuff said.
 
docphin5 said:
Do you know what makes a blockhead?
Click to expand...
It's your word, perhaps you can inform everyone of your blockhead theory.
docphin5 said:
When someone has been soundly refuted, yet they double down on their error.
Click to expand...
Is that what you are doing? Do you spike the football too?

There is something evil here, so you claim.

I'm trying to determine precisely where the evil is and you are not helping.
 
Furion said:
It's your word, perhaps you can inform everyone of your blockhead theory.

Is that what you are doing? Do you spike the football too?

There is something evil here, so you claim.

I'm trying to determine precisely where the evil is and you are not helping.
Click to expand...
When most people say something that is incorrect (and we all misspeak sometimes) but then subsequently are provided the correct information, will own their mistake, say Thank You, and change course. But not religious fundamentalists. They double down on their error, they obfuscate, they threaten with hellfire, they deny, they bury their head in the sand. They are blockheads.
 
docphin5 said:
When most people say something that is incorrect (and we all misspeak sometimes) but then subsequently are provided the correct information, will own their mistake, say Thank You, and change course.
Click to expand...
Ok, where would you like me to guide my ship?

Would you like me to fear the water, the wind and the ground because they can bring natural evil?
docphin5 said:
But not religious fundamentalists.
Click to expand...
Sounds like those who claim the water, the wind and the ground are evil, or potentially evil, or a conduit of evil.

You sound quite the fundie in this regard, really defensive too.

I would think someone like you, fully persuaded of your theory, would be a little more responsive to questions since you believe you hold the truth.
docphin5 said:
They double down on their error, they obfuscate, they threaten with hellfire, they deny, they bury their head in the sand. They are blockheads.
Click to expand...
I would think a rational explanation from you is required.

So far as I can tell you are being a blockhead, askeered of fielding my questions about your theory.
 
docphin5 said:
When most people say something that is incorrect (and we all misspeak sometimes) but then subsequently are provided the correct information, will own their mistake, say Thank You, and change course. But not religious fundamentalists. They double down on their error, they obfuscate, they threaten with hellfire, they deny, they bury their head in the sand. They are blockheads.
Click to expand...

As a CARM fundie, let me ask you this: Are you incapable of providing an example of a CARM fundie doubling down after being "provided correct information" about something they said that is incorrect?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top