WHAT IS THE POINT TO EVIL ?
- Thread starter The Duke of Earl
- Start date
I am going to take a little time of my night to type out part of an outline. So enjoy....
Introduction
A. belief in God is no the same as belief that God exists(although the later is necessary for the former: for one who believes in God, "the fundamental truth about reality is thrugh about a person"
B. Natural theology: the attempt to show that religous belief is rationally acceptable
C. Natural atheology: the attemp to sho that religous belief is irrational.
I. The Problem of Evil
A. Definitions
1) Natural Evil--earthquakes, tidal waves, diseases
2)Moral Evil--cruelty, effects of human ignorance and arrogance.
3)Theodicy--an explanation for why God created/allows evil.
B. Plantinga's views on theodicy:
1. existing theodicies are not very succesful
2. why suppose that god must reveal the reason for evil?
3. Why suppose that we can or could understand such a reason?
4. Why suppose there couldn't be some other very good reason for God not giving us the reason for evil?
C. What would it take to show that a theist is irrational?
1. more than not hing an explanation!
2. a contradiction
dang I don't have time to type out the rest. I think it sets ground work though.
This outline was taken from,
Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil
Introduction
A. belief in God is no the same as belief that God exists(although the later is necessary for the former: for one who believes in God, "the fundamental truth about reality is thrugh about a person"
B. Natural theology: the attempt to show that religous belief is rationally acceptable
C. Natural atheology: the attemp to sho that religous belief is irrational.
I. The Problem of Evil
A. Definitions
1) Natural Evil--earthquakes, tidal waves, diseases
2)Moral Evil--cruelty, effects of human ignorance and arrogance.
3)Theodicy--an explanation for why God created/allows evil.
B. Plantinga's views on theodicy:
1. existing theodicies are not very succesful
2. why suppose that god must reveal the reason for evil?
3. Why suppose that we can or could understand such a reason?
4. Why suppose there couldn't be some other very good reason for God not giving us the reason for evil?
C. What would it take to show that a theist is irrational?
1. more than not hing an explanation!
2. a contradiction
dang I don't have time to type out the rest. I think it sets ground work though.
This outline was taken from,
Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil
SO... are we talkin bout demons in 'hell', or demons in the since of evil men?
if its demons in hell, then they are spawns of satan, in which are they are constructed already in this lake of fire and don't know nothing except for evil and torment, its not like satan is handing out bibles down there in 'hell', so these demons can seek salvation.
if its evil men then i would have to say that most criminals or morally twisted peeps i know trully just give a shit bout there afterlife.
if its demons in hell, then they are spawns of satan, in which are they are constructed already in this lake of fire and don't know nothing except for evil and torment, its not like satan is handing out bibles down there in 'hell', so these demons can seek salvation.
if its evil men then i would have to say that most criminals or morally twisted peeps i know trully just give a shit bout there afterlife.
quote:
"In order for light to shine there must be darkness."
This is true. But, also note the nature of darkness as opposed to the nature of light. Darkness is not an entity. It is merely the absence of light. Which would signify that darkness is not an opposing force to light. Rather, it is an obstruction of light. Just like if someone was to punch you and you blocked it. You are obstructing them from hitting you. If you were opposing it you would be counter-attacking. There is a difference between opposing and just stopping or "obstructing". Good and evil aren't really 2 opposing sides. Evil is just a blockage of Good.
"In order for light to shine there must be darkness."
This is true. But, also note the nature of darkness as opposed to the nature of light. Darkness is not an entity. It is merely the absence of light. Which would signify that darkness is not an opposing force to light. Rather, it is an obstruction of light. Just like if someone was to punch you and you blocked it. You are obstructing them from hitting you. If you were opposing it you would be counter-attacking. There is a difference between opposing and just stopping or "obstructing". Good and evil aren't really 2 opposing sides. Evil is just a blockage of Good.
^^^^^
one more thing to add......
It also depends on how you define good and evil. If you define "good" as those characteristics attributed to God and "evil" as those characteristics which are not, then the above example plays into it. But, if you define good and evil as the "desirable" vs. the "undesirable" then you have a duality which is opposing because its all opinions. Its all relative.
one more thing to add......
It also depends on how you define good and evil. If you define "good" as those characteristics attributed to God and "evil" as those characteristics which are not, then the above example plays into it. But, if you define good and evil as the "desirable" vs. the "undesirable" then you have a duality which is opposing because its all opinions. Its all relative.