Evil exists because we as humans are given free will by God.

 

 

God gives us the ability to make decisions, but we have to face the consequences.

 

 

Thus evil.

That is awfully dogmatic, because you cannot prove God gave us evil. God could of just created the universe and everything took its own natural course.

 

Furthermore, God cannot be all good if it made us capable of evil. God cannot be all good if it allows forrest fires and earthquakes to happen, because man is not responsible for the harm caused by natural disaster. If it is all good, it is impossible for whatever it creates to be opposed to being all good- God therefore cannot be all good, it must be something else.

 

By your logic:

Good exits because we as humans are given free will by God.

 

God gives us the ability to make decisions, but we have to face the consequences.

 

Thus good.

 

How is that any more or less true?

You also cannot prove that God did not give us evil.

 

 

As far as that logical statement I never implicity stated that good exists because we were given free will by God.

 

 

I simply stated that Evil does exist. Evil is possible because God gives us free will. Good is also possible because of this same reason.

 

Evil and Good both exist because of free will.

 

 

It is up to us as humans to determine which path to follow, the good path or the evil path. God is there to guide us when we need Him, but still the ultimate decision must be made by humans.

 

 

Whether or not God exists doesnt matter. You believe in God. You don't believe in God. You have no clue one way or the other. Whatever...

 

 

Based on my faith, God exists. Thus everything exists due to the existence of God. Something created the world in the beginning. Whether it be creating the mass that later was broken apart by the big bang or by the creation stories in the Bible and other faith based societies.

Edit: Quote too long, but please read!

A) I agree with the A argument, however I tend to agree only the part that deals with creation, not the part that transcends into other arenas (like the argument from design.) However, the uncaused first cause can be just about anything. God or who knows- but I do think it proves creation.

 

B) I disagree. This is an argument from analogy. We as creators create things with intelligent design. The universe shows what we preceive as intelligent design. Thus God, being like man, made the universe.

 

However, there lies two problems.

 

1. I can perceive as what you see as intelligent design and order as mass disorder. The entire universe is exploding, expanding and or collapsing, has black holes...there are genetic mutations, natural disaster...I can conceive a far greater order than the order that exists. Therefore, God is either neither all powerful, all good, or all knowing if we use this analogy, or maybe what we see as order is at its very base complete disorder- we just perceive it wrong.

 

2. The argument from analogy makes the assumption God is like man. However, God being infinite in its powers would have to be inconceivable to man and infinitely apart from it. If the analogy does work, God is finite and it becomes anthropomorphitic(sp?) or finite/mortal. Then what's to stop god from having legs? And a beard? How about a bad hip? This seems absurd.

 

Any argument from analogy cannot work, no matter how much Swinburne wants it to!

 

C) I disagree because the conscience is derived from an understanding of man, thus an anology is made, thus God is finite, thus the theistic God would not be the true answer and the God that can result is an absurd anthropomorphite(sp?) God.

 

D) The argument from universal consent means nothing.

 

Some say its proof of God's interference and revelations. However, I can say those things are just made up. The appearance of a popular anything doesn't means it true. Genetic inferiorty theory used to be the predominant thought/belief. Is it made more or less true? No, that's illogical. Thus, that is just saying that religion wins the popularity contest, and that makes no truth claim.

 

 

A Priori argument

 

outside of experience ha! Anselm was smart, but he blundered big time. I said "ha", because of this:

"1. Understand the below:

 

Welcome to my site, where enlightenment is only 15 minutes away...how? Because I am God, and here's the proof:

 

1. The concept of Craig being God (or the greatest possibly being) exists in the understanding. Not true? If you deny the above you just thought about it, meaning the concept exists in your mind, so read on.

 

2. Craig/God might have existed in reality (I am a possible being)

 

3. If something exists only in the understanding and might have existed in reality, then it might have been greater than it is.

 

4. Suppose Craig/God exists only in the understanding.

 

5. Therefore Craig/God might have been greater than he is.

 

6. Craig/God is a being than which a greater is possible.

 

7. The greatest possible being is a being than which a greater is possible.

 

8. Becuase 6 and 7 are contradictory when the definition of Craig/God is the greatest of all things possibile in existence and understanding, it is therefore false Craig/God exists only in the understanding.

 

9. Therefore Craig/God is real.

 

Thank you Anselm, I am indeed God."

 

Using Anselm's argument, I just proved I am God. Are you going to start praying to me?

 

The problem is that Anselm assumes that the greatest possible being must have infinity in all of its attributes. Power, intelligence, goodness, and existance.

 

What? Existence is not an attribute Anselm. God is all powerful. God is good. God is existence? Existence is not a predicate! Anselm made a syntactic mistake! The ontological argument is wrong, or we can prove just about anything uusing a priori.

 

I hope you liked my responses.

It is up to us as humans to determine which path to follow, the good path or the evil path. God is there to guide us when we need Him, but still the ultimate decision must be made by humans.

Exactly. That is one of the things that they remind us at my youth group.

You also cannot prove that God did not give us evil.

 

Logically an all good God cannot create evil. Its illogical. One must create a different kind of debate (read up on Leibniz and compossibility). Unless you argue Leibniz's point, then God being all good would have to be illogical.

 

As far as that logical statement I never implicity stated that good exists because we were given free will by God.

Exactly, you stated something else with just as much evidence. Its dogmatic, it does not prove a thing.

 

I simply stated that Evil does exist.? Evil is possible because God gives us free will.? Good is also possible because of this same reason.

Yes, but logically, God allowing evil either shows God is impotent and or malevonent to a degree. Furthermore, even with free will, that doesn't describe why God allows natural disasters or lesser moral evils. Not only that, free will can be an extension of its (God's) evil. God giving us anything is unfounded, you cannot prove if it did or it didn't. Because there exist human and non-human evil and the theistic God is the creator, there is no way that the god can be both all good and or all powerful. Its illogically impossible unless you support compossibility.

 

It is up to us as humans to determine which path to follow, the good path or the evil path.? God is there to guide us when we need Him, but still the ultimate decision must be made by humans.

This is dogmatic still. Who says God guides you at all? Furthermore, why does God not prevent all natural non man made evils?

 

You are not solving the Epicurian Dillema: Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? when then is evil?

 

Based on my faith, God exists.? Thus everything exists due to the existence of God.? Something created the world in the beginning.? Whether it be creating the mass that later was broken apart by the big bang or by the creation stories in the Bible and other faith based societies.

You cite the cosmological argument. I agree with the uncaused first cause and the priniciple of sufficient reason. I fully agree. However, based on faith you cannot prove God exists- the arguments which you put in your post are for that.

It is up to us as humans to determine which path to follow, the good path or the evil path. God is there to guide us when we need Him, but still the ultimate decision must be made by humans.

Exactly. That is one of the things that they remind us at my youth group. Sure they instill things in your youth group. Try reading my replies to the arguments brought up by Das texan and get a different point of view. You must expect your faith to perpetuate itself.

Sorry, you're not going to try to change my mind.

Sorry, you're not going to try to change my mind.

To say one's mind CANNOT change just shows one is thick-headed and doesn't care what else is out there to understand.

 

If you believe in the ontological argument, you're an idiot. If you don't know what the teological argument is, how dare you call yourself a believer. You are unwilling to test your own belief system and jsut ignore what else you hear.

 

If you admit that your faith only gives you an one out of an infinity chance of being true logically and you choose to take that slimmest of chances, then I will understand why you care not of any logical arguments. If you don't admit this, you are extremely stubborn.

 

edit: I changes a word because i didn't like its connotation

You are the last one to judge me. I believe what I believe in. You disagree? Then have a cookie. I have my beliefs and you have yours. Just let it rest already.

You are the last one to judge me. I believe what I believe in. You disagree? Then have a cookie. I have my beliefs and you have yours. Just let it rest already.

Yes, but you refuse to put into words that your belief based entirely on faith gives you an one out of an infinity chance of being right.

 

If you don't agree with the above and still refuse to debate logical issues, you are stubborn (at least when it comes to discussing this issue.) Look at texan, he actualyl tried to bring up some good arguments. You're bringing nothing, which leads me to believe you that you believe for no logical reason. So why don't you concede the obvious so there's no misunderstanding? I believe that you refuse to understand the implications of beleiving entirely based upon faith.

I believe because I have seen things throughout my life that have made my faith stronger. I know you're going to disagree, but I know what I saw and what I went through at the time, and no one, even you can take that away. I am not going to tell you exactly what happened because honestly, it is none of your business.

 

I am happy that Adam goes out and does research. But don't compare me to anyone because I am not Adam nor am I Lina. I am me.

I believe because I have seen things throughout my life that have made my faith stronger. I know you're going to disagree, but I know what I saw and what I went through at the time, and no one, even you can take that away. I am not going to tell you exactly what happened because honestly, it is none of your business.

 

I am happy that Adam goes out and does research. But don't compare me to anyone because I am not Adam nor am I Lina. I am me.

You believe that God has intervened in your life? Do you admit the following possibilities:

-a different God from the one you understand intervened

-you are mistaken and there is a different explanation

 

It appears to me that you cannot prove to me that the theistic God can be a viable God, because you cannot support it logically. You seem ignorant of the subject and refuse to learn more. You can read what I write and many other philosophers write, to at the very least expand your mind. I can link arguments from both sides for you if you want. However, you refuse to learn more and choose ignorance, ah the old garden of eden dillema, ignorance over understanding.

 

To be willingly ignorant is not a moral act in my honest opinion.

 

Furthermore, things have happened in my life to, but one must interpret things thoroughly and not jump to conclusions.

 

--

oh yeah, faith cannot be made stronger from events. Events would have to support logical and understandable things that could be assesed for viability, unlike faith.

1. A true believer inquires information about their beliefs, case closed.

 

2. No, everything I say I think is right otherwise I wouldn't say it. I can be wrong, I just don't think I am. I'm sure you believe the point of view you are coming from is right- so is everything YOU say is right? Don't be ridiculous.

 

3. Um, I am not denying anything. I believe all organized religion is wrong if people cannot back up what they believe with issues that do not concern faith. I do not respect the people who just don't care enough to find out why they believe something. Faith is a "cop out." I beleive all moral people should "convert" and think like me. Is that going to happen? hell no. I believe a lot of people can make the moral mistake of having faith and still overally be good people and contribute to society. An example? On this board a good contributor is Lcyberlina, but she is a person of faith, but it sounds like otherwise she's highly moral. That's what counts. It is my belief that one is more so moral if they don't rely on faith- that's my faith argument.

 

4. As an agnostic I agree we can never answer those questions for sure. You agree with me.

 

However, a lot of these questions are certainly debatable. For example, your God is contrary to te evil that exist in this world. If God was truly all powerful and all good, why would their be evil? In "his" power, it would not be necessary. This means the attributes f your God have to be wrong and you must concede you don't understand your God enough to say it is all good and or all powerful. This is a logical debate that can certainly be had.

 

I hope this answers your qualms with me.

1- Um, story of doubting Thomas. Think you should reread that one.

 

2- Your both wrong, I'm right. Happy?

 

3- Do I go forcing my religion on people? Nope. Do they ask my adivice from time to time? Sure. So what am I going to say, sorry I have no proof that a God exists so I can't tell you what to think? I have no proof that a tree that falls in the forest with no one around makes a sound, but do I tell people it doesn't sound? No, because I believe it sounds.

 

4- I forgot what you were answering for number 4, I'm working on like 10 minutes sleep.

 

Every question in faith is debatable. But you are the prosecution here, so I say you have the burden of proof and you have to arise the arguement and have proof, we are defending. We just have to counter what you say until you prove there is No God or whatever you mean to prove.

Thomas refused to believe the impossible, I don't see what's wrong with that.

 

Why is the burden of proof on me? I'm saying I don't know, that's hilarious.

 

I don't go walking around and tell people to believe in what I believe in. However in a topic like this, I admit I am very stubborn when someone cannot use logic to discredit me.

 

Everythign is debatable, right? That's what I have been saying! Debate it, just don't say "well, I have faith" and leave it at that- that's deplorable.

 

You need more sleep man those 10 minutes didn't do good enough!

_________________________________-

 

Is there a God? I don't know. Is there the theistic/JudeoChristianMuslim God? A one out of infinity chance based entirely on faith.

 

How about using the arguments from das texan?

 

Cosmological argument: :thumbup God proof: Creation did occur, there's an uncaused first cause- is that cause "God"? I don't know, we don't know enough to tell.

 

Teological argument :thumbdown fails, makes God finite

 

Argument from conscience- :thumbdown fails, makes God finite

 

Argument from popularity- :thumbdown fails, does not prove a truth claim, just what it states, popularity

 

Ontological argument :thumbdown fails, its an a priori argument outside from experience, existence is not a predicate.

 

Are any of you theist debating about the teological, conscience, ontological, and etc? No, it seems like you guys aren't proving anything.

 

Juanky, I know your position, you probably thought about these things, but how about you other guys.

I believe because I have seen things throughout my life that have made my faith stronger. I know you're going to disagree, but I know what I saw and what I went through at the time, and no one, even you can take that away. I am not going to tell you exactly what happened because honestly, it is none of your business.

 

I am happy that Adam goes out and does research. But don't compare me to anyone because I am not Adam nor am I Lina. I am me.

You believe that God has intervened in your life? Do you admit the following possibilities:

-a different God from the one you understand intervened

-you are mistaken and there is a different explanation

 

It appears to me that you cannot prove to me that the theistic God can be a viable God, because you cannot support it logically. You seem ignorant of the subject and refuse to learn more. You can read what I write and many other philosophers write, to at the very least expand your mind. I can link arguments from both sides for you if you want. However, you refuse to learn more and choose ignorance, ah the old garden of eden dillema, ignorance over understanding.

 

To be willingly ignorant is not a moral act in my honest opinion.

 

Furthermore, things have happened in my life to, but one must interpret things thoroughly and not jump to conclusions.

 

--

oh yeah, faith cannot be made stronger from events. Events would have to support logical and understandable things that could be assesed for viability, unlike faith. All I gotta say is, I know what I experienced and yes it has made my faith stronger. I am done.

God isn't for the weak, but ignorance is.

God isn't for the weak

I beg to differ.....

don't you pray to God?

 

If someone truly debates the issue and is convinced what they beieve is true, they are not weak.

Weak people need God more, because they need someone to turn to to try and make their sufferings go away when no one they know can help them.

so you are saying that you are weak?

 

If someone truly believes something after inquiring info, then they are entitled to it. Otherwise not.

 

However, after the arguments, it seems like most guys rely on dogma and or faith or pragmatic truth, and I cannot conceive their validity, thus I am an agnostic.

I never at all even came close to implying that I was weak, but then again I believe we are speaking of two different kinds of weak. I am speaking of ill weak, people who have a mental or physical problem that turn to God for help because they have no where else to turn to.

I never at all even came close to implying that I was weak, but then again I believe we are speaking of two different kinds of weak. I am speaking of ill weak, people who have a mental or physical problem that turn to God for help because they have no where else to turn to.

so you are talking about different kinds of theists...

"Beinfest works in mysterious ways"

 

 

some people know what i mean

Some more for those who actually care to think about these things:

 

Heaven As We Know It Is Logically Impossible

 

The cornerstone of every religion is the afterlife, usually a perfect all good one. What exactly is heaven? It's so good, we cannot conceive it. Of course, there is nirvana, which is attaining infinite harmony and knowledge. That's sounds really awesome too. However, what problems are involved with the idea of heaven?

 

Firstly, the idea exists that we deserve something better or deserve some sort of reward for our hard work and or faith. If heaven is infinitely better than here on Earth, then why can we even understand it? It would have to be beyond anything we can conceive. The idea that we should be provided awards is learned psychologically through observation or experience (Social Cognitive Theory or Behaviorism). Unless one makes heaven and or what allowes us there an anthropomorphite and or finite, heaven is simply not possible- it would be illogical. The reason for this is that the idea that we deserve rewards is an idea we have learned and if such a give and take mentality transcends to God's dominion, it would be analgous to us and therefore not infinitely greater. What's to stop the afterlife from being a copy of Earth, an imperfect place?

 

Secondly, if heaven is infinitely greater than us, what makes us worthy of heaven? Humans are not infinitely great creatures, so what creatures are then prevented? Apes? Worms? Fungus? Trees? Bacteria? It sounds that one would have to arbitrarily set a limit. How about anything with brains? Worms have brains, are there worms in heaven? It just seems like man is egocentric, belieiving that we are inherently the highest life form and we somehow deserve to go to heaven, opposed to lower level lifeforms. Furthermore, because we are finite are we even compatible with something infinitely great? All of us have a degree of evil within us, and unless our personalities were altered and perverted, we would be most definitely incompatible with something perfect. If our very being is altered, then it is not us going to heaven, we would just be all the same and vegetables. Because certain "evil" parts of our personality are so deeply intwined, removing it would totally change us. A problem is also presented by the fact that how does one really know what makes them eligible for entrance into a heaven. Maybe its 85 percent goodness or 94 percent faith, or maybe approximately 92 percent of a mix of the too. This is an arbitrary method of deciding upon what is a necessary requirement. Some might contend one could have 100 percent faith, but I sure everyone has had the smallest of doubts pass in their thoughts, so this would be an impossibility.

 

Heaven is simply incompatible with us, it cannot exist as we know it. If it does exist, it would have to be finite and possible just a clone of Earth. Without any evidence that proves there is a heaven and with current conceptions of heaven logically impossible, we must doubt the existence of the heaven as we know it.

Here's what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about the existence of Heaven.

 

II. EXISTENCE OF HEAVEN

 

The existence of heaven is, of course, denied by atheists, materialists, and pantheists of all centuries as well as by those rationalists who teach that the soul perishes with the body -- in short, by all who deny the existence of God or the immortality of the soul. But, for the rest, if we abstract from the specific quality and the supernatural character of heaven, the doctrine has never met with any opposition worthy of note. Even mere reason can prove the existence of heaven or of the happy state of the just in the next life.

 

We shall give a brief outline of the principal arguments. From these we shall, at the same time, see that the bliss of heaven is eternal and consists primarily in the possession of God, and that heaven presupposes a condition of perfect happiness, in which every wish of the heart finds adequate satisfaction.

 

? God made all things for His objective honour and glory. Every creature was to manifest His Divine perfections by becoming a likeness of God, each according to its capacity. But man is capable of becoming in the greatest and most perfect manner a likeness of God, when he knows and loves His infinite perfections with a knowledge and love analogous to God's own love and knowledge. Therefore man is created to know God and to love Him. Moreover, this knowledge and love is to be eternal; for such is man's capability and his calling, because his soul is immortal. Lastly, to know God and to love Him is the noblest occupation of the human mind, and consequently also its supreme happiness. Therefore man is created for eternal happiness; and he will infallibly attain it hereafter, unless, by sin, he renders himself unworthy of so high a destiny.

 

? God made all things for His formal glory, which consists in the knowledge and love shown Him by rational creatures. Irrational creatures cannot give formal glory to God directly, but they should assist rational creatures in doing so. This they can do by manifesting God's perfections and by rendering other services; whilst rational creatures should, by their own personal knowledge and love of God, refer and direct all creatures to Him as their last end. Therefore every intelligent creature in general, and man in particular, is destined to know and love God for ever, though he may forfeit eternal happiness by sin.

 

? God, in his infinite justice and holiness, must give virtue its due reward. But, as experience teaches, the virtuous do not obtain a sufficient reward here; hence they will be recompensed hereafter, and the reward must be everlasting, since the soul is immortal. Nor can it be supposed that the soul in the next life must merit her continuance in happiness by a continued series of combats; for this would be repugnant to all the tendencies and desires of human nature.

 

? God, in His wisdom, must set on the moral law a sanction, sufficiently appropriate and efficacious. But, unless each man is rewarded according to the measure of his good works, such a sanction could not be said to exist. Mere infliction of punishment for sin would be insufficient. In any case, reward for good deeds is the best means of inspiring zeal for virtue. Nature itself teaches us to reward virtue in others whenever we can, and to hope for a reward of our own good actions from the Supreme Ruler of the universe. That reward, not being given here, will be given hereafter.

 

? God has implanted in the heart of man a love of virtue and a love of happiness; consequently, God, because of His wisdom, must by rewarding virtue establish perfect harmony between these two tendencies. But such a harmony is not established in this life; therefore it will be brought about in the next.

 

? Every man has an innate desire for perfect beatitude. Experience proves this. The sight of the imperfect goods of earth naturally leads us to form the conception of a happiness so perfect as to satisfy all the desires of our heart. But we cannot conceive such a state without desiring it. Therefore we are destined for a happiness that is perfect and, for that very reason, eternal; and it will be ours, unless we forfeit it by sin. A natural tendency without an object is incompatible both with nature and with the Creator's goodness. The arguments thus far advanced prove the existence of heaven as a state of perfect happiness.

 

? We are born for higher things, for the possession of God. This earth can satisfy no man, least of all the wise. "Vanity of vanities", says the Scripture (Eccles., i, 1); and St. Augustine exclaimed: "Thou hast made us for Thyself (O God) and our heart is troubled till it rests in Thee."

 

? We are created for wisdom, for a possession of truth perfect in its kind. Our mental faculties and the aspirations of our nature give proof of this. But the scanty knowledge, that We can acquire on earth stands in no proportion to the capabilities of our soul. We shall possess truth in higher perfection hereafter.

 

? God made us for holiness, for a complete and final triumph over passion and for the perfect and secure possession of virtue. Our natural aptitudes and desires bear witness to this. But this happy goal is not reached on earth, but in the next life.

 

? We are created for love and friendship, for indissoluble union with our friends. At the grave of those we love our heart longs for a future reunion. This cry of nature is no delusion. A joyful and everlasting reunion awaits the just man beyond the grave.

 

? It is the conviction of all peoples that there is a heaven in which the just will rejoice in the next life. But, in the fundamental questions of our being and our destiny, a conviction, so unanimous and universal, cannot be erroneous. Otherwise this world and the order of this world would remain an utter enigma to intelligent creatures, who ought to know at least the necessary means for reaching their appointed end.

 

? Very few deny the existence of heaven; and these few are practically all atheists and epicureans. But surely it cannot be that all the rest have erred, and an isolated class of men such as these are not the true guides in the most fundamental questions of our being. For apostasy from God and His law cannot be the key to wisdom.

 

Revelation also proclaims the existence of heaven. This we have already seen in the preceding section from the many names by which the Bible designates heaven; and from the texts of Scripture, still to be quoted on the nature and peculiar conditions of heaven.