People say that sufferings exist because they are part of God's plan. C3 : By C2, a non-omniscient observer in reality can only compare perceivably real possibilities. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against god and his purpose. The suffering non-human animals outweighs that of humans by far. We can never really know, and so how can we use this as a tool to ascertain whether or not something is true? Creating us good but not free will only achieve a heaven where individuals have had no choice but to be good. We naturally assume that if god exists, the purpose of this life is to be happy, and that god should make all of our lives happy.
What Brandon objected to is the claim that there is a necessary logical contradiction between the existence of an all-powerful, all-good God and the presence of evil in a universe created by Him. Where were the good angels during the Holocaust? This can be demonstrated in that, two observers can discern that a subject is experiencing distress, but they can disagree on whether they consider it suffering or not. The Christian idea of Satan and the angels comes from post-Old-Testament and therefore noncanonical or apocryphal Jewish literature. Some may want to know how to respond to friends or loved ones who have experienced some devastating tragedy. Evil gives us some reason not to believe in god but theists insist that this evidence is overridden by other evidence for god. God would be totally and completely responsible for the sum total of what an angels was.
One of the most common arguments against the existence of God is the problem of evil and suffering. What I claimed was that we can reasonably suppose why God would permit evil in certain circumstances, but that we're in no position to suppose he has no good reasons to allow evil which is what the atheist must suppose to employ this particular argument against God. I am at least able to have a rudimentary idea of what living in such a world would be like, just as I have an idea of what living in a world with 500 less children starving everyday would be like. C4 : By C1 and C3, Evil will always exist in any reality, even if created by a benevolent Creator. God can exist and so can evil. I think this debate occurred before Craig came to accept evolution as fact, which happened rather recently. First of all it does not explain natural disasters and the suffering of animals and secondly there is no contradiction in having partial free will.
We were all given free will. This can be illustrated by the following example: Imagine a hungry puppy standing beside its bowl. For many people, the existence of evil and suffering is their number one objection to the existence of God. The purpose of life is not human happiness, it is to know god. It seems to me that when you are in friendship there is not suffering in being separate, whereas when there is enmity there is.
. Jimbo: Benny my boy your theism is done for! It can be purely descriptive, not evaluative, to call someone 'loving' or 'protective'. In fact he can shave off another bit and pass it on. Christians should expect to see terrible evils in the world. And when they rebelled against God, the effects of it in some way registered in the material universe. Then god gets angry when he sees his creation rebelling against him. Regarding the example, it merely demonstrates perception that is subject to limitations.
It does not disprove the existence of God. Why should an animal suffer a horrendous ordeal only to die and be forfeited the same possible rewards human suffering is worthy of under the Christian worldview? Well, is it me or the proponents of the problem of evil? Self-sacrifice is another great good, but can only exist if there is inter-dependence, if some people find themselves in situations where they need help from others. Brandon is saying permitting the innocent to suffer when you can prevent it is consistent with goodness if there is a good enough reason. C1: Each being perceives evil in its own world based on what it perceives as possible. It isn't a logical problem of evil, it's not saying the co-existence of evil and God are contradictory. To argue against this is to adopt the disturbing position that it is usually not wrong to allow children under your care to get beaten and molested.
Either way, the premise fails to support my opponents position. Human observers are of course subject to bias and lack of information, but that does in no way change that fact that suffering is a objective state of affairs I don't see a reason to limit the definition to exclude possible harm to the soul. God does not want us to remain forever separated from Him, so in that sense I can see that God is opposed to physical suffering. Just because I never suffer, doesn't mean I don't experience well-being. We cannot truly know what animals are experiencing beyond their biological expressions, to which we are tuned to via empathy; we have to imagine what they are experiencing.
This response also highlights the crucial fact that we may not always know why God allows evil to occur. Did he move particles about the phase-space with his fingers? This point represents something like experiencing neither physical pain nor pleasure. How can one say that something is evil unless there is such a thing as good? Some might suggest those latter two options would be preferred. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection 310. You have the following options based on your budget and availability of gifts at the store: A Purchase 3 mediocre gifts.
There is no need for that hypothesis. C3 - Obviously, a being that is confined to a finite reality is only aware of the real possibilities that exist within that reality, and is unaware of the infinite possibilities that were excluded by the Creator. Perhaps absolute goodness is like when I've just finished eating that tasty pizza, just, You know, infinitely better. P5 : An omniscient Creator perceives all possibilities, even those excluded in reality. Armstrong has to show that it is feasible to create a world which has the same amount of the knowledge of god and of his salvation, but that has less evil. These arguments are so good and important, and there is so much to be said regarding each one and all the possible counterarguments, that it almost feels wrong to summarize them so briefly. There all sorts of immaterial beings we can make up that would be more consistent with the reality we encounter than the triomnical catastrophe that doesn't sit right with the evidence or any solid moral arguments.
That would convince billions to freely worship him and jettison their pagan gods. He does not reveal them to each of us, because that would make the universe a sort of haunted house. Your statement that an intelligent creator is not required is not grounded in evidence. This understanding goes all the way back to Plato. Depictions of Heaven tend to be either entirely incomprehenible or obviously shallow and unsatisfying. It is not the case that humans can judge God to be loving or not, for God is love. Compassion, for instance, is of great value, but can only exist if there is suffering.