Official Religious Debate Thread

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
-Epicurius

It's amazing where you can go if you take a little logic and apply it to questions like these.  In Veritas's post, Epicurius has done something that's unfortunately too common: he says something that sounds profound, so people accept it as truth.  I agree with the quote on most of its points, but the crucial flaw lies in the second question and its conclusion.

"Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent."

Nothing could be further from the truth.  Let's think for a second about why God might allow evil.  First of all, why does evil exist? Or, to put it another way, how CAN evil exist? Well, it's simply defined as deviation from good.  It exists only because there is an opposite, just as white can exist only if there's black.  If you add white to any color, you'll move it closer to that extreme.  If you add black, you'll move it closer to the other extreme.  It works because there's a range and two extremes.  Now, consider a world where evil doesn't exist, and in fact, can't exist (that is, the omnipotent God doesn't allow it).  This state void of morality is analogous to the color grey.  Is there any way to make it more grey or less grey? Not unless you add an additional variable to the mix.  Therefore, a world without evil wouldn't be a good world; it would just BE.

What are the implications of such a world? Well, to put it very simply, it would be incredibly dull.  There would be no motivation to do anything, since any result or consequence is just as good as any other.  We eat to stay alive because living is a "good thing" and feeling hungry is a "bad thing".  However, those thoughts would be irrelevant in a world lacking the concept of evil.  You couldn't even choose to ignore eating for the sake of saving time, since that approach considers free time to be "good," or at the very least, implies that there are more productive (and consequently, better) actions that could be taken instead.  See the problem? Having no negatives would make every aspect of our lives pure chance, our actions driven by no more than a dice roll.  "But Gamer!" you may be saying.  "A world without morals doesn't have to be a world without feeling or emotion!" Well, yes it does, but if you don't like that world, I'll try a more plausible one.

Consider a different world devoid of morality (by way of being free from evil).  In this world, you don't want to starve and you don't want to feel pain and all that, as in our world, but here, you are simply not permitted experiences that would cause those negative feelings.  Everyone always has enough to eat, but everyone also must eat exactly that much so that they don't go hungry or get fat.  What if, for some reason, that person had a disorder that made them happier when they were starving? Well, their friends and family would have to be forced to be okay with that, rather than having their own opinions on the matter.  After all, the goal of a world without evil is a happier world, and how can someone remain happy in such a situation unless they're forced to be?

Think I'm being too simplistic? Well, what do you expect from a world that must perpetually remain in that state of grey that comes from disallowing evil?  Just as a line requires two points, so does motivation require two extremes: good and evil.  When you reduce an environment to a single point, you force it to one discrete extreme or another, but never any combination of the two.  In these last two paragraphs, I've described worlds abiding by the only extremes I know: pure chance, or pure control.  What other options are there?

Remember, evil is not some state of morality as equally valid as good, but instead is a deviation from good.  With that in mind, let's consider the third point of Epicurius.

"Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?"

What happens when an omnipotent God imposes his will perpetually? All of his subordinates simply become extensions of him.  As long as humans are FORCED to do God's will instead of their own (the only way to achieve a world free of evil), then there's no personal free will involved.  How can there be? People wouldn't be acting on their own; in fact, you could barely say that they have any personal identity, given that all their decisions are made for them.

I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again: Part of giving people free will is also giving them the ability to screw things up royally.  THAT'S why there's evil in the world.  Yes, God is able to prevent evil, but he is not willing, because his will would then be our will, in which case we're no longer autonomous beings, but redundant facets of him.

Besides, how can there be redemption without failure? How can there be grace without transgression? How can there be love if there's nothing to love (that is, if we're nothing more than identical extensions of God)? Taking this into account, it becomes clear that God's allowing of free will (and through it, evil) is done of love, not malevolence.  He's giving us the opportunity to think for ourselves and act for ourselves, even at the cost of alienating some through sin.  After all, what good is it to worship God if there's no other option? Why does it matter to love him if we can't do otherwise? Is doing his will at all admirable if there's no alternative?


tl;dr
Without evil there's no free will.  God wants us to have free will; otherwise there'd be no reason to create us.

[Veritas]

The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Not that it matters if God gives us free will or not, because it's already been decided who's going to heaven or not

lol whoops

[iDante]

This topic is strange.
We have basically shown that it is very difficult if not impossible to disprove the existence of some higher deity.

I don't care about that. What I do care about is why people believe in this higher deity in the first place in the 21st century. I don't like answers like "you have to try it to believe it" or "it can't be explained," because they get nowhere. What I want is a concrete, this-is-why-everyone-should-be-religious answer. Until one of those surfaces then there is no reason for this thread to even exist.

[Shard]

Personally I'm atheist, because I just can't understand how a being that made us would let us get screwed over by nature, and the odd dictator. So I think there isn't one. You guys get me?

Maybe us getting screwed by nature caught him/her/it completely off guard and said entity lacks the means to protect us?

According to most Christians, god is omniscient. He knows all and is everywhere. So based on that, your statement makes no sense.

I wonder how so many religions ended up being made. Surely that's not the grand design in the scheme of things. I try to ask my mother about such things but she always says its not our place to understand what god does.... But then, if that's true, why are we sentient beings?

[PANZERCATWAGON]

Peopled, in the beginning turned to religious beliefs as a way to explain the unexplained. I believe it's still like that now.

This wouldn't be a problem if people didn't cling to the religious explanation after the scientific explanation was found.

why is the scientific explanation more favourable than the religious explanation. either could be right

Are you seriously suggesting that the sky is a sea? The sun revolves around the Earth in it's celestial sphere?

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

are you seriously suggesting that we should blindly follow the science of a few emotion-fuelled irrational guessers? guessers that are relatively evolutionary babies, marooned on a small rock with apparently trillions of light years of unexplored space surrounding them, looking at the sky and saying they know it all

either belief is as ridiculous as the other. yet you mock explanations which hold about as much water as your own

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Not that it matters if God gives us free will or not, because it's already been decided who's going to heaven or not

lol whoops

You're confusing omniscience with predestination.

[Veritas]

either belief is as ridiculous as the other. yet you mock explanations which hold about as much water as your own

If you're trolling, that's cool I guess, but you're doing it pretty poorly.

The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Not that it matters if God gives us free will or not, because it's already been decided who's going to heaven or not

lol whoops

You're confusing omniscience with predestination.

Omniscience implies predestination. If God knows everything that was and will be, you don't have a choice in your actions.

Even then, how can you claim free will matters when it's already decided whether you're going to heaven or not?

[PANZERCATWAGON]

either belief is as ridiculous as the other. yet you mock explanations which hold about as much water as your own

If you're trolling, that's cool I guess, but you're doing it pretty poorly.

yeah youre right im obviously trolling

the science weve discovered defeats the god argument completely. theres no way we are wrong. i forgot humans are omniscient

[Veritas]

either belief is as ridiculous as the other. yet you mock explanations which hold about as much water as your own

If you're trolling, that's cool I guess, but you're doing it pretty poorly.

yeah youre right im obviously trolling

the science weve discovered defeats the god argument completely. theres no way we are wrong. i forgot humans are omniscient

Religion is based on making guesses and calling it the inscrutable truth, and science is based on repeatable observations culminating in calling something probably true.

The only point where they're on equal footing is when dealing with the unknowable, but considering religion's pattern of being wrong, it hardly looks good for them there.

[Smegma]

Religion is based on making guesses and calling it the inscrutable truth, and science is based on repeatable observations culminating in calling something probably true.

Nope.

[Veritas]

Religion is based on making guesses and calling it the inscrutable truth, and science is based on repeatable observations culminating in calling something probably true.

Nope.

Is it so difficult to elaborate?

[Smegma]

Religion is based on making guesses and calling it the inscrutable truth,

Nope.

Is it so difficult to elaborate?

Fixed, now my statement goes as far as yours.

[Veritas]

Religion is based on making guesses and calling it the inscrutable truth,

Nope.

Is it so difficult to elaborate?

Fixed, now my statement goes as far as yours.

Did you mean to change that to science? I can't tell.

[Smegma]

No, I just eliminated the part that gave more information as to what science does. I was originally referring to the statement on religion.