-
Features
Problems with the Problem of Evil
- Thread starter SLD
- Start date
SLD
Contributor
So we’re responsible for childhood cancer?
ideologyhunter
Contributor
No, of course, he just made bunnies, rainbows, and delicious strawberries. Yummy!!
DBT
Contributor
The bible tells us that not only does God create evil, but creates the 'wicked for the day of evil.'
SLD
Contributor
No. There’s no evidence for any god. Much less that such an entity created childhood cancer. However, humans most emphatically did not create childhood cancer. Or at least not the vast majority of it.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,353
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Got evidence that any gods have ever done anything?
Elixir
Made in America
Everything is evidence. How else could there be anything? Even the pointy headed pocket protector club can’t tell you that! But it’s all in The Word. You just have to believe in your heart, and give all you can to your local Jesus International LLC. It’s tax deductible and tax free so you can help spread The Word while you learn to read it correctly yourself.
Uh, you be saying God is dead.
You know, like da Vinci and Van Gogh, Lion.
We tried to blame Van Gogh anyway, but he turned a deaf ear.
God didn't make it imperfect, we did.
Would you blame Van Gogh or DaVinci for this...
Uh, you be saying God is dead.
You know, like da Vinci and Van Gogh, Lion.
We tried to blame Van Gogh anyway, but he turned a deaf ear.
Lion IRC
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
- Messages
- 5,138
- Basic Beliefs
- Biblical theist
Yep.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,353
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Show me.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,729
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Well, God made it so whales could prevent from getting cancers. One of the only mammals. So, yes, I'm going to say god needs to explain that one.
A: Why is there childhood cancer if god all loving?
B: Man fell.
A: So God's response to man falling was to allow for random children to die from a horrific disease?
B: Yup.
pood
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 4,282
- Basic Beliefs
- agnostic
Like what? Cause cancer in children?
Elixir
Made in America
Nope.
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 15,618
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I like to approach the problem from a different direction than most, namely from the perspective that creators of universes can exist in evil places regardless of their personal qualities, and simulations (which the belief of special creation actually is) allow bi-omni entities.
As I've discussed before, from actually observing the transcendence of a person over a simulation, we can readily understand what actual powers this situation naturally creates, and that there are two perspectives it can be seen from, because there two time dimensions, one manifold over the other, with simulation time distorting atop "true time" (relatively true, at any rate).
You could argue for forever over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or over whether it really is or isn't a "god" since the properties reality supports are different from the ones religion claims, but the ability to observe the necessary implications of "simulation" in general proves me right about the limits to "Omni" qualities.
If we are going to search for TRUE statements that may be made REGARDLESS of what others believe, these are such truths.
What I find funny is that we have a mechanism where we can actually directly instantiate such a cosmological relationship between two real, observable things, and people instead sit with their thumbs up their asses talking about angels dancing on pins.
Is there some aversion among the weak kneed humans to playing at being a god so we can put those questions to rest without even needing to believe in one?
A creator of a simulation creates that simulation in some "stately field". To date, we name these fields "memories", and while the memory may only be manipulated by the programs programmatically, I as an entity outside that system can open it up and directly access, reading it without incurring even the smallest of meaningful changes... Or changing it without engaging in any programmatic action.
This power doesn't afford the outside human the ability to know the future even if they change the present, without actually observing the future of the simulation, and this knowledge only applies to the previously observed events of the simulation "sans new information", not the events that would occur were you to create new information in the simulation. The only way to know the future in such a state and still be capable of action would be if the future were scripted ahead of time, and that still only gives awareness to the extent of the scripted pieces. Those sorts of events make it even harder to account for the weirdness that might be required to effect the scripted event, too. There would be consequences.
You can't change the past and you can't know the future even if you are a god, and the expectation that some entity knows the future is at the very heart of the problem of evil!
And if you explore further into the motives that we observe around people who actually do stuff like that, none of it is mysterious, for all that some of it is a bit weird and circular.
I honestly think that the problem itself can't be used to logically rule out "special creation" ala "we are on a computational simulation". At best it degrades claims of "Omni" to something else. It attacks "the set of qualities possibly assigned to", not the "existence of" and it doesn't do a very good job of thoroughly attacking those qualities, merely downgrading them.
As I've discussed before, from actually observing the transcendence of a person over a simulation, we can readily understand what actual powers this situation naturally creates, and that there are two perspectives it can be seen from, because there two time dimensions, one manifold over the other, with simulation time distorting atop "true time" (relatively true, at any rate).
You could argue for forever over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or over whether it really is or isn't a "god" since the properties reality supports are different from the ones religion claims, but the ability to observe the necessary implications of "simulation" in general proves me right about the limits to "Omni" qualities.
If we are going to search for TRUE statements that may be made REGARDLESS of what others believe, these are such truths.
What I find funny is that we have a mechanism where we can actually directly instantiate such a cosmological relationship between two real, observable things, and people instead sit with their thumbs up their asses talking about angels dancing on pins.
Is there some aversion among the weak kneed humans to playing at being a god so we can put those questions to rest without even needing to believe in one?
A creator of a simulation creates that simulation in some "stately field". To date, we name these fields "memories", and while the memory may only be manipulated by the programs programmatically, I as an entity outside that system can open it up and directly access, reading it without incurring even the smallest of meaningful changes... Or changing it without engaging in any programmatic action.
This power doesn't afford the outside human the ability to know the future even if they change the present, without actually observing the future of the simulation, and this knowledge only applies to the previously observed events of the simulation "sans new information", not the events that would occur were you to create new information in the simulation. The only way to know the future in such a state and still be capable of action would be if the future were scripted ahead of time, and that still only gives awareness to the extent of the scripted pieces. Those sorts of events make it even harder to account for the weirdness that might be required to effect the scripted event, too. There would be consequences.
You can't change the past and you can't know the future even if you are a god, and the expectation that some entity knows the future is at the very heart of the problem of evil!
And if you explore further into the motives that we observe around people who actually do stuff like that, none of it is mysterious, for all that some of it is a bit weird and circular.
I honestly think that the problem itself can't be used to logically rule out "special creation" ala "we are on a computational simulation". At best it degrades claims of "Omni" to something else. It attacks "the set of qualities possibly assigned to", not the "existence of" and it doesn't do a very good job of thoroughly attacking those qualities, merely downgrading them.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,729
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
It is impressive that original man didn't get cancer, but then man fell and god was capable of making such a minute change in cell reproduction that some people would get cancer, some randomly, some due to certain exposures, some due to substance abuse.
ideologyhunter
Contributor
<Cricket. Cricket. Cricket. Cricket. Cricket. Cricket.>
God made loads and loads of them crickets.
Elixir
Made in America
It is impressive that a lot of people swallow that BS.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,729
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
The other consideration is that man existed how long before "falling"? The warrantee likely hadn't had time to expire.
Elixir
Made in America
I heard there was just the two of them when they "fell" for the snake trick.* How old were they then? How much older was Adam than Eve?
* plus the cameraman/stenographer, who redorded the event in writing that had yet to be invented.
pood
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 4,282
- Basic Beliefs
- agnostic
Waiting.