Fiction & Theodicies

[seanD]

We're all very much aware that the theist regulars in here believe that there is a dogmatic explanation for the PoE. We skeptics get it. One could argue that we don’t need a thread for it or take the line that a discussion on the topic is worthwhile. I’m taking the view that it is worthwhile. As usual, you're steering the discussion in the redundant and pointless path of SeanD’s personal beliefs.

I asked you a question, namely: “There remains the moral issue that, despite your only defense being the presupposition of Christian dogma being true, many Christians seek to impose their supposition-based moral code on the rest of the community - including on all those who do not believe such presuppositions to be true. Is that moral behavior in your view – is it just? “

What is your response?

I've never imposed my moral beliefs on the community. I'm just having a discussion in a forum about theism. If we cross swords with you insisting that theism is not true and me insisting it is true, the discussion goes nowhere; there is no discussion there. When a skeptic starts a thread in a predominantly theistic forum, particularly about the so-called PoE issue, I'm assuming they're at least hypothetically accepting that the theology is true in order to hear how the Christian will advance the argument.

[JimL]

As to the top of your post: He did initially create it that way. As to the bottom of your post: You can't have freewill without choice. This is really basic Sunday school stuff.

Giving them free will is one thing, giving them evil things to choose from in a supposed ideal world is another.

[seanD]

Giving them free will is one thing, giving them evil things to choose from in a supposed ideal world is another.

If you don't have the ability to choose right and wrong; where is the freewill?

[JimL]

If you don't have the ability to choose right and wrong; where is the freewill?

In an ideal world why does there need to be wrong choices? There can be different choices, just as there were many trees in the garden to use their free will upon, but free will doesn't necessitate evil choices be present.

[seanD]

In an ideal world why does there need to be wrong choices? There can be different choices, just as there were many trees in the garden to use their free will upon, but free will doesn't necessitate evil choices be present.

How so? Explain the logic to me.

[JimL]

How so? Explain the logic to me.

God said there are many trees in the garden, you are free to eat from any of the trees except from the one, you are not to eat from it. Had he left out the one that was evil to them they still were free to choose amonst the rest. free choice, no right or wrong!

[seanD]

God said there are many trees in the garden, you are free to eat from any of the trees except from the one, you are not to eat from it. Had he left out the one that was evil to them they still were free to choose amonst the rest. free choice, no right or wrong!

God apparently wanted a moral choice. Where is there a moral choice?

[JimL]

God apparently wanted a moral choice. Where is there a moral choice?

Then God would responsible for bringing evil into the world.

[seanD]

Then God would responsible for bringing evil into the world.

If a parent sets a curfew and trusts the child to follow the curfew, but the child disobeys; is that the parent's fault? I suppose in an arbitrary way, but the parent has the right to set the rules for any reason they want. The child needs restraints in order to mature in character and the parent has the right to enjoy the satisfaction of developing a trusting relationship between them and the child. Without trust, there's no meaningful relationship.

[Kane]

God apparently wanted a moral choice. Where is there a moral choice?

Why does there need to be one in the scenario that JimL has stated? Choosing between options is still choosing, even without a moral category.

[Tassman]

I've never imposed my moral beliefs on the community. I'm just having a discussion in a forum about theism. If we cross swords with you insisting that theism is not true and me insisting it is true, the discussion goes nowhere; there is no discussion there. When a skeptic starts a thread in a predominantly theistic forum, particularly about the so-called PoE issue, I'm assuming they're at least hypothetically accepting that the theology is true in order to hear how the Christian will advance the argument.

You may have never imposed your moral beliefs on the community personally, but you are a member of an organized structure that goes to great lengths to impose its will upon the community.

Your assumption that the OP “hypothetically accepts the Judeo/Christian theodicy” is not the case, as the OP makes clear. The argument concludes with: ”Why not just ditch the whole idea……Relegate it (and by implication the deity) to fiction where it belongs”

The discussion you don’t want to have is that evil and suffering exist in the form of natural disasters and anti-social behavior. It would exist with or without a god. But to argue that the omni-god exists and is good despite the existence of evil and suffering is an obvious contradiction which has never been satisfactorily resolved and in my view never can be.

[lilpixieofterror]

The assertion was yours. You claimed that God's interference against evils would spoil humanity. I challenged you to give evidence of that claim. You presented some milquetoast attempts, and I gave reasons why I think your responses do not work. That does not shift the burden of proof to me that you cannot prove your claim. The claim still remains yours to support.

I'll wait until you've made a better attempt than goading.

Again, you are allowed to make any assertion you want and don't have to present any kind of evidence, what-so-ever that your assertions are fact, but of course. Whenever a Christian says something and backs it up with evidence, you want MORE evidence and MORE evidence and MORE evidence before you'll believe it because you're isn't interested in seeing if Christianity is right. Nah, you are interested in buttressing your faith then you are in seeing if it is true. Again, all one has to do is see just what happens to children in which their parents give them everything they want; they end up with serious emotional and behavioral problems as a result and this can be easily backed up just by talking to psychologist or even taking a child psychology course, good parents balance making their children do things they do not want to do with letting them do what they want to do and they need to teach their children right from wrong and then hope, when they are not around, they children will choose right and not wrong. Again the only solution for your plan to work is to rid the world of the ability to choose, but you don't like that option so you seek more excuses (unbacked by evidence and in fact, the evidence would be contradictory to your claims since you keep wanting to use the Bible to back it up, but totally ignoring the fact that God’s presence didn’t prevent Adam and Eve from choosing sin nor did it prevent Israel or in fact, anybody from choosing sin) to back up your faith with. Gosh, I knew your faith was weak, but you didn't have to show it this much.

[lilpixieofterror]

We're all very much aware that the theist regulars in here believe that there is a dogmatic explanation for the PoE. We skeptics get it. One could argue that we don’t need a thread for it or take the line that a discussion on the topic is worthwhile. I’m taking the view that it is worthwhile. As usual, you're steering the discussion in the redundant and pointless path of SeanD’s personal beliefs.

Anybody else notice Tazzy Wazzy's character assassination over actually dealing with the facts? Typical fundy atheist, always shows his hatred of religion. Anyway, perhaps Tazzy Wazzy can present a few cases in which morality is not based on a set of rules or standards that basically boil down to people having obedience towards a set guidance. Of course, I doubt he can do it, but he'll just accuse me and others, who disagree with him, of having a mental disorder because Tazzy Wazzy can't deal with facts.

I asked you a question, namely: “There remains the moral issue that, despite your only defense being the presupposition of Christian dogma being true, many Christians seek to impose their supposition-based moral code on the rest of the community - including on all those who do not believe such presuppositions to be true. Is that moral behavior in your view – is it just? “

What is your response?

Again Tazzy Wazzy presents character assassination and personal attacks because he doesn't want to deal with facts. How revealing, anyway... what Tazzy ignores is that atheist want to force their morality upon others, but of course, he'll deny it because he doesn't care about facts. Personally, it would really depend upon the belief in question. If somebody wants to commit adultery (for example) I would highly advise against it because I have never seen any good come from adultery and more families are destroyed and lives ruined from the practice then anything else, but that really is their choice. On those bases, should adultery be illegal? It does cause much harm and really doesn't seem to cause any good; perhaps Tazzy Wazzy would like to present a reason why not. Plus, if atheist can attempt to making their morality law, why can’t Christians? Can we say ‘double standards’?

[lilpixieofterror]

I think that what the O.P. is suggesting is that there is a simpler solution to achieving the ideal world that the all knowing, all powerful God, has in store for his creation. Just create it that way in the first place. The christian idea is that the all knowing all powerful God is not all knowing or all powerful enough to do that. If God didn't want Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit, then why did he put it in the Garden and tempt them with it?

So Jimmy's solution is for God to have forced Adam and Eve to only obey and not given them the choice to obey or disobey. I suppose Jimmy was once the kid that blamed mommy for tempting him with good cookies when mommy caught him trying to take them from the cookie jar. It was all moms’ fault and you have no responsibility in anything eh? Is it just me or do so many fundy atheist sound so much like a spoiled 5 year old that still blame others for the choices they make in their lives?

[lilpixieofterror]

In an ideal world why does there need to be wrong choices? There can be different choices, just as there were many trees in the garden to use their free will upon, but free will doesn't necessitate evil choices be present.

So Jimmy, how is that free will if you only have the ability to obey and do nothing else? Do you know what 'free will' means? Again, why is it that so many fundy atheist sound like spoild 5 year olds that blame others, for the choices they make in their lives?