You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Does this answer what the "higher good" is for the problem of evil?
As philosophers, both atheistic and theistic, have studied the problem of evil, many have come to the conclusion that it can be solved by assuming for a higher good, something that could only come about through evil. Though this does not make God the author of evil, nor responsible for evil, as they have noted, the "higher good" has yet to be understood. Could the very beginning of the Bible answer this? Genesis 2:9 states the following: "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Right after this, God determines that it is not good for Adam to be alone, and decides to make a helper fit for him (Genesis 2:18). However, before God makes Eve in Genesis 2:22, God marches all of the animals in front of him, showing that a suitable helped has not been found (Genesis 2:20). Could it be that evil is simply the recognition for the need of God, as Adam was shown the need for woman? Could it be that evil is simply so that we might have not the intellectual, but the personal knowledge of what evil is? Psalm 107 preaches a similar thing about suffering, and Romans 3:26 tells us that the cross was to show God's righteousness, being the just and the justifier. Could it be that suffering, evil, and all the bad things in the world are simply a result of the eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, in which spiritual death immediately resulted? Could it be that this tree garnered us a knowledge of our personal need for God in all ways?
Our spiritual death (separation from God) is what makes us ask the questions, .. "who am I ? .. why am I here ? .. where am I going ?"
.
Pascal said: .. "There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man than cannot be filled by any created thing .. but only by God the Creator, made known through Jesus Christ."
.
St. Augustine said: .. "Thou hast made us for thyself, O God, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in thee."
.
From God's vantage point, .. the problem of man is not just he is a sinner in need of forgiveness, his greater problem is that he is dead and in need of life ........
I am a Christian, and I approve this message. O friend, God is great and righteous! He is life, and love, and all manner of goodness. Christ's death on the cross was a means to the end, the end being God Himself. Aristotle claimed that there is an end to which all things aim; however, I claim now that God is the thing to which all things aim. And in Christ's death, in which Jesus, He who knew no sin, was made to be sin, He became our propitiation. God justly destroyed Christ, with an eternity of hell on the cross, exchanging places with us, getting what we deserved, and lavishing upon us His own righteousness, life, and inheritance. But in this means, Christ became the full expression of God's righteousness and greatness, through His love! Praise be to God! O friend, God is holding His hand out to you, just take hold of it.
Okay, like totes thanks. Okay well one of my problems is the deliberate placing of the tree of good and evil in the gared of Eden. Seems like a purposeful attempt to like trick man.
Well, I personally think, and I know many theologians who believe it also, that God placed it there for the above reasons. He wanted to display His goodness and man's need for Him! So, similar to God deliberately not placing Eve in the Garden, God deliberately placed the tree so that they might understand and know evil and goodness. Man would understand personally what evil actually was, realizing his need for God! I personally think this answers the issue, though another might disagree. What do you think?
Well, that depends on how one defines "cause." In a common sentence of "subject, verb, object," God did not causeanything. He simply let it happen. However, that being said, it was his will. God willed for it to happen. But, I wouldn't fret about that at all! God is sovereign over even evil, and allows it to happen, leading us to His truth! Psalm 107 states that God wills for us to suffer, so that we might build hope in Him. He wants to satisfy us; however, we require first a lack for Him to then satisfy us!
So God wanted murder, rape, and all the rest of the terrible things to happen in order to show us how he is above it all and how this life is nothing compared to eternal life with him? So is it still my fault if I sin?
This is where theologians differentiate between God's divine/absolute and revealed will. He hates evil, and wants it destroyed (revealed), but He allows it to happen so that a greater good might come about (divine/absolute)! 2 Corinthians shows this really well. Paul says he has a thorn of the flesh that God won't take away from him. Why? Because his power is made perfect in weakness, and the glory of God shines through us in our weakness.
Most theologians do not think that she existed. This was why Adam burst into song after God had given him Eve!
“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”
However, even if there were, I don't think it would have any real bearing on Christian theology, say for possibly the end of time. Some think that Lilith was the mother of Cain, giving rise of Cain, the first "spawn of Satan." This line, some conspiracy theorists believe, is supposedly the line of the Illuminati. Some think they are the line of Satan, who will give rise to the beast in the end.
Some people call Cain the spawn of Satan, one view from the basis of Lilith, and another from the view of spiritual offspring. But, all in all, Lilith is possible but unlikely.
I do! However, I have no issue, nor complaint, with evolution. Augustine said that the days of creation could be metaphorical. However, I don't think they are meant to be that. So, I am a 6000 young earth creationist, but I don't think it matters.
Lizards grow their entire lives. So do humans. I don't see why dinosaurs couldn't have been the ancestors of modern day lizards. Most dinosaurs are under 2 ft tall, which means that once the bigger ones go extinct, then you have a viable theory of creation.
I do not. Radiometric dating has been shown to be insanely fallible. There are many variables one must have to assume for to validly present a conclusion.
I have only ever seen those flaws mentioned on creationist websites. While I am not saying that they are wrong, that does seem awfully convenient. They will certainly have glitches every now and then, but insanely fallible? I don't know about that. Mind sharing some evidence?
Take Carbon dating as an example. When you use carbon dating, you have to have a base measurement for how much was in the atmosphere so that you can measure how much was in the thing itself. So for example, when you use carbon dating, you take the atmosphere levels of the time, which is based in the strata, and then compare them to the amount in the fossils to determine the age through decay rates. The problem with this is that we are already assuming for multiple things. For one, we are assuming that the thing actually died at that location. Second, we are also assuming that the atmosphere did not change. Third, we are assuming that the strata can actually measure the atmosphere levels. Fourth, we are assuming that the decay rate has stayed the same. Fifth, we are assuming that the strata was the same strata that was there. And much more. As you can see, if there were a flood, all of these things would be contradicted. We would have things from x place be in y place; we would have strata from z place in a place, mixed with other strata from other places; and much more. The flood counters all of the evidences presented by old earth peoples. In fact, if I remember correctly, there are only 3 or 4 C14 dating centers in the US, because scientists don't think it is a trustworthy dating method. That raises the questions as to why they think long-term dating methods will work.
Here's a "secular" and somewhat "academic" source:
They are tested on objects that they know the age of. It never gives an exact date, but it does give a range.
And how did they get that age of the object, o friend? haha They get the age by a number of possible ways. One is radiometric dating, which cannot be trusted, and would be begging the question if done in a certain way. Second way is through index fossils, which raises the question as to how they go the date for those. Third is the law of superposition; but, that can be countered if there were a flood. And much more. However, as said, every single old earth theorist evidence can be countered through the mere fact of the flood.
Take 2 Peter 3 - "This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly."
Christians are warned from the very beginning of this age to be wary of any people who scoff, follow their sinful desires, asking where the second coming is, believing in uniformitarianism, and deliberately overlooking the flood.
Romans 1 says, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
This one says that there are and will be people who suppress the truth of God, knowing God to be real in their hearts, who then claim to be wise, while making creation out to be god.
Both of these passages sound a lot like modern day, atheistic, naturalistic, scientific evolutionists. The Bible warns us about people like them, o friend.
Well, that's hardly a convincing argument. There are also plenty of people who have Ph.D.'s and consider it to be accurate.
O yeah, I'm not denying that. However, if you watched the Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate, many professors and scientists admitted that many of their colleagues were very sympathetic to creationism, and a young earth creationist model, and many of them were afraid to come out about how they actually believe it to be true, first and foremost, above evolution, but didn't in fear of losing their jobs. What is clear here is that science has a hegemony rule over evolution, and anyone who argues against it is classified as an idiot, and will very likely be tossed to the dogs. So, my argument here was to simply show that there are many people who disagree with radiometric dating, and it is not simply "obvious" and "true."
And how did they get that age of the object, o friend? haha
How did they get the age of the ones they originally tested? Because they already knew the age. They tested it on items where the age was documented. I took archaeology in college. I'll have to pull out my old textbook and see what I can find.
Christians are warned from the very beginning of this age to be wary of any people who scoff, follow their sinful desires, asking where the second coming is, believing in uniformitarianism, and deliberately overlooking the flood.
Right, and that is all fine if you completely trust the Bible. If we were to go off Genesis, we can conclude that the sun was made on the fourth day, and man was created on the sixth day. Well, we now know that the sun isn't just something in the sky that symbolizes day, it is what makes day. To have days, you'd have to have the sun. The creation of the sun would really have to be the first day. Unless of course this was some sort of ancient metaphor, or simplified way of explaining creation. Maybe putting the events in order. But if that is the case, then arguing that the earth was created in seven days is completely unnecessary. If it is simply just an order of creation, then each "day" could have been thousands of years.
The Hindus believe that the world goes through cycles. They think the earth is actually trillions of years old. The Bible, in a way, teaches cycles as well. The flood destroyed mankind, minus Noah and his family, making the world once again covered entirely by water. Seems like a parallel to the beginning of Genesis. What if the introduction of Genesis was merely the beginning of another cycle? Of course, that doesn't explain why the sun, moon and stars were created in that cycle though.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
I personally believe that God is everything and that we are actually God, he is our Higher Self. I do not consider myself to be religious though, I find religion to be unnecessary. A lot of that verse can apply to my own beliefs. For example, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made."
If we go according to the Big Bang, we can conclude that everything came from a single point, meaning that everything IS that single point. Just as an acorn is an oak, and on that oak are leaves, twigs, and more acorns. When an acorn falls from an oak, it may grow into an oak itself, but it was originally part of a different oak. It is still that original oak though. If I were to pour a bottle of water into two cups, both cups would contain the same water that is in the bottle. So we get the illusion of individuality. This not only applies to trees and water, but everything... Including humans. We are a combination of our father's sperm and our mother's egg. We are those things, we just grew... And then when the time comes for us to leave our mother's womb, the doctor cuts the umbilical cord, which directly connects us to our mother, making us and our mother one. But we were our father too. We were our father connected to our mother as one. We're still them. So take this all the way back to the creation of humans. I personally believe in evolution, so I think we emerged from the ocean, After all, we're 70% water. The earth is something that grows organisms. We literally grew from the earth. We ARE the earth. Even the Bible would agree with this, because Adam was made from the dust of the earth. He was the earth. If you were to take clay from the ground and make some sort of figure, it is still that same clay, isn't it? So Adam being earth, God made Eve from his rib. HIS rib, so she was him, as well as the earth.
So back to the Big Bang, which theoretically is what created the universe, had in it implication for everything. Just as a flower is implied within a seed, or an oak is implied within an acorn. This isn't an argument against God, this is an argument FOR God, because within that point of creation was implication of intelligence. We have never observed something intelligent come from something that is unintelligent. Everything is one giant organism. As Alan Watts said, as a wave is something the entire ocean is doing, we are something the entire universe is doing. We are literally the universe looking at itself. This would make sense for an eternal God to eventually decide to play that he is not and live the ultimate reality. People who have died and come back (NDE), often come back with the realization that God is just our higher Self. That everything is one. Religions have been saying this for thousands of years! And even more incredible, is that science agrees with it. They have been telling us for a while now that everything is energy. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, and we're made of it. We ARE that eternal energy that people call "God".
Life has a pattern of out, in, out. We came out form the Big Bang, into the Earth, then we grew out of the Earth. We come out of our father, into our mother, out of our mother, eventually we die and go into the ground... But the pattern continues, I believe. Death is another beginning. We come back out of death, maybe as a spirit/soul... Maybe reincarnation does exist. Even Jesus implied that a few times. But people who have gone through NDEs say that life on Earth is for soul growth. We live, we die, we go to the afterlife, and then we come back to earth if we need to grow more. If we are eternal beings, eighty years or so, spent on earth isn't a big deal. Time is an illusion anyways.
Anyways, I know that was a lot. It is all just food for thought, you don't need to agree or disagree with it.
That in no way explains how God can be all good, all powerful, all knowing, and not be responsible for evil. Nothing happens without God's permission. Please don't use circular logic.