Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Autochron · 09-11-2004, 09:22 PM

Alright. Guess I'd better weigh in on this one.

I see the point of a meaningful distinction between "bad" things and "evil" things. That is to say, assume for the moment that there is a God, that God has a plan, and that God is good all-knowing and all-powerful. One can make the argument, as above, that the earthquake is not provably "evil", and therefore is inadmissible in the argument at the top of this post.

I'll try to make my own answer, as I see things. Your mileage may vary.

God creates the world, God creates us to plunk down in it, decides that earthquakes and other such things happen to kill some of us so that the rest of us can 'learn' something, and claims to _love_ us? Sounds like a ****ing abusive relationship to me.

As to whether or not the earthquake is evil, well, either there's an afterlife or there isn't.

If there isn't (easier case), then IMO unless evil is correlated with some kind of temporal suffering, then I argue that it is ultimately meaningless. And the net result of an earthquake is just that -- temporal suffering. Ergo, the proposition that there is no afterlife implies that earthquakes are evil. Surely there are other ways for God to accomplish what needs to be accomplished in our world without causing such suffering to innocent people?

Now, if there is an afterlife, and our temporal existence is merely a cog in a greater machine, then things get a bit more difficult.

First off, either we can comprehend God's plan or we can't. If we can, then why does He need to start off the earthquake? Just to make a point? If we can understand God's plan, then why is He hiding it from us and letting bad things happen on such a grand scale instead? If He wants me to have faith in Him, and doesn't want to show Himself to me, all I can say is that that seems _wrong_-- kinda like "There's a mat at the bottom of this gorge that'll save you when I push you off. Yes, I know you can't see it from here. Stop whining. *push*" What's good about that?

And what if we can't understand God's plan? As mentioned in post #1, if _I_ can, given access to knowledge of past and future events, comprehend a series of events that causes less temporal suffering than that which God puts into practice, then I am either better or more powerful than God. And by my assumptions, that can't happen.

And anyway, what gives us the temerity to look at the "good" that comes from such things as an earthquake, and to assume "This is God at work", if we already tried to make the point that God's plan is unknowable? If greater good comes from lesser evil (and I'd like to see the good that cancels out some of the evil I've heard about (metaphorically speaking -- spare me your stories of goodness)), then it seems to follow that greater evil can come from lesser good (say, the earthquake _not_ happening). But we can't say that God is at work here because the end result is evil. It seems like mental masturbation to say "Well, this is part of God's plan, but that isn't because I like this better." And if the purpose of religion isn't to learn to be good rather than evil, then what is it?

Sorry about writing a novel here -- this is a topic that gets me going, and I'm interested in exploring it.

09-11-2004, 09:22 PM	#23 (permalink)
Autochron Upright Location: ... sorry, no answer here.	Alright. Guess I'd better weigh in on this one. I see the point of a meaningful distinction between "bad" things and "evil" things. That is to say, assume for the moment that there is a God, that God has a plan, and that God is good all-knowing and all-powerful. One can make the argument, as above, that the earthquake is not provably "evil", and therefore is inadmissible in the argument at the top of this post. I'll try to make my own answer, as I see things. Your mileage may vary. God creates the world, God creates us to plunk down in it, decides that earthquakes and other such things happen to kill some of us so that the rest of us can 'learn' something, and claims to _love_ us? Sounds like a ***ing abusive relationship to me. As to whether or not the earthquake is evil, well, either there's an afterlife or there isn't. If there isn't (easier case), then IMO unless evil is correlated with some kind of temporal suffering, then I argue that it is ultimately meaningless. And the net result of an earthquake is just that -- temporal suffering. Ergo, the proposition that there is no afterlife implies that earthquakes are evil. Surely there are other ways for God to accomplish what needs to be accomplished in our world without causing such suffering to innocent people? Now, if there is an afterlife, and our temporal existence is merely a cog in a greater machine, then things get a bit more difficult. First off, either we can comprehend God's plan or we can't. If we can, then why does He need to start off the earthquake? Just to make a point? If we can understand God's plan, then why is He hiding it from us and letting bad things happen on such a grand scale instead? If He wants me to have faith in Him, and doesn't want to show Himself to me, all I can say is that that seems _wrong_-- kinda like "There's a mat at the bottom of this gorge that'll save you when I push you off. Yes, I know you can't see it from here. Stop whining. push" What's good about that? And what if we can't understand God's plan? As mentioned in post #1, if _I_ can, given access to knowledge of past and future events, comprehend a series of events that causes less temporal suffering than that which God puts into practice, then I am either better or more powerful than God. And by my assumptions, that can't happen. And anyway, what gives us the temerity to look at the "good" that comes from such things as an earthquake, and to assume "This is God at work", if we already tried to make the point that God's plan is unknowable? If greater good comes from lesser evil (and I'd like to see the good that cancels out some of the evil I've heard about (metaphorically speaking -- spare me your stories of goodness)), then it seems to follow that greater evil can come from lesser good (say, the earthquake _not_ happening). But we can't say that God is at work here because the end result is evil. It seems like mental masturbation to say "Well, this is part of God's plan, but that isn't because I like this better." And if the purpose of religion isn't to learn to be good rather than evil, then what is it? Sorry about writing a novel here -- this is a topic that gets me going, and I'm interested in exploring it. __________________ I've been given the mushroom treatment -- kept in the dark and fed sht.