1. Re Martian's point: I don't think God's 'version' of right and wrong is substantially different from ours. The difference between God's ethics and my ethics is like the difference between the mathematics of a PhD and my mathematics, not like the difference between mathematics and english.
In this vein, the flaw in the argument from evil is not that God's good and evil are different from ours. The problem is that it is possible to be good and still allow some evil if it is for a greater good. And it is possible that a god would allow the evil in this world for the greater good of free will. Therefore, the existence of evil does not disprove the existence of God. And this counter-argument is why few, if any, contemporary philosophers of religion advance the old argument any more. Most argue that the existence of evil makes God's existence very unlikely.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redjake
When people say "don't take it so literally!!!! everything in the Bible isn't meant to be a literal translation!!!!", that screams to me "oh shit, the stuff in the Bible can't fool or convince humans anymore because we have become too advanced to believe it, let's just say it was a "guideline" on how to live and worship"
|
This might make sense except for the fact that the Bible has been taken as non-literal for thousands of years. The idea that the Bible is non-literal has nothing to do with scientific advancement.