while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
Blaming the tsunami victims is like driving a fleet of trucks into a crowd of men women and children and then saying that they only died because they were too stupid to get out the way fast enough.
I agree with that.
This view is called retribution and I don't accept that too.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
Maybe we don't need to find life inherently absurd.
Absurdism is inevitable.
Every sincere thinker will reach Absurdism. But it's a crossing line not a stop.
Nihilism and Existencialism are the next steps after Absurdism.
Both theists and atheists are existencialists.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
So.... it's not free will to be killed by a tsunami.
This statement reminds that indeed I would die for my free will.
Not only me but a lot of people in history actually died for only their free will but for other's free will.
So I can make an assertion that free will is more important and valuable than mortal life itself.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
Perhaps we are too much focussed on the importance of the individual asking for special status, intervention by the deity?
I don't think we are hyperfocusing this problem.
I think this is a central problem also the hardest one in theology and simply can't be watered down.
This problem is a cause for life changing positions (like cofty).
Apparently the problem could be supernaturally intervened without damaging free will. But the butterfly effect prevents me to accept this statement.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
I really enjoy discussions with atheists. Great thinkers.
I simply can't stomach "discussions" with pentecostals and their "where's written" at every word you say. Ironically everyone of them always brings "written commentaries" (litter-a-trash) along with the Bible. And "voices" speak to them what is not "written".
Atheism is totally valid for this kind of people. Atheism is a great system of thought to expose the Sola Scriptura heresy.
Thank you atheists and keep exposing these religions that are incompatible with rational thought and doesn't accept science (specially evolution).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Council_for_Dialogue_with_Non-Believers
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
Gentlemen, I think we reached the point of balance in our shared knowledge about the discussion.
From this point is more a matter of choice (sbf) rather than being objectively right or wrong. Not in a relativistic sense but because we don't have more "fresh" (cofty) things about it. From now on our decisions upon the subject can be equated to decisions of our favorite colors.
I would like to summarise our main points and I accept corrections if I'm wrong.
1) Problem of natural evil proves God cannot exist. (cofty)
2) Problem of natural evil does not proves God cannot exist. And it also does not proves God causes evil. (JM and SBF)
3) If God exists, problem of evil proves God is a monster because He not just permits evil but He ultimately causes evil. (cofty and Nic)
4) If God doesn't exist we have the problem of absolute void producing the universe. (Sbf and JM)
5) Absolute void producing something/universe is not a problem. (Nic and cofty)
6) Ruling out God and accepting absolut void producing the universe requires a kind of an extraordinary knowledge that we don't possess. Therefore we can accept mystery. (SBF and JM)
7) Ruling out God and accepting absolut void producing the universe does not requires a kind of an extraordinary knowledge that we don't possess. Therefore we cannot accept mystery. (Nic and cofty)
8) Is possible to exist a justifying reason for the problem of evils (natural and man-made). The two main defences are: accepting total mystery and accepting the immortality of soul. (JM and SBF)
9) Right or wrong we will go back to the absolute void (oblivion) after our deaths. There's no possibility of afterlife in any sense imaginable. (cofty and Nic)
10) If we're right. There's the dreadful possibility of eternal Hell for us after death. So Pascal's wager must be considered. (JM)
11) With or without God the problem of evil persists. And there's no known solution even without God. (SBF and JM)
12) Ultimately we are total responsible for our own free decisions. Free will exists, at least in our internal intentions and imagination. (JM, Nic, SBF and cofty)
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
Cofty
I'm not sure I really understand the question. I don't mean to be flippant when I say that my personal philosophy can be summed up as "shit happens".
I understand the definition of these two possibilities is very hard to put in clear words. We are in a very hazy territory. That's why we created art...
Being between an " evil monster" and "shit happens" it's just like Odysseus caught between Scylla and Charybdis.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
Nic
This was my clunky attempt last year to explain how I see the problem of theodicy, it's a bit long and maybe I'll edit and pare it down one day but I stand by it;
Good writing style.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
I couldn't answer that until you tell me how you are defining evil.
As we perceive evil in natural disasters.
And evil as suffering caused by people as involuntary (to the sufferer), intentionally and unnecessary (to the evil doer).
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
Bishop Barron is either stupid or dishonest.
He lyingly pretends god did not cause the tsunami he only permitted it.
He's just trying to find some answer. He knows the official position of the Church is the total mystery about the problem of natural evil.
Even though nothing he said in video is "fresh", I think he made a good job summarising the existent views about the problem.
The god of Jesus did not permit the suffering of the Asian Tsunami - he caused it. He murdered them wilfully, deliberately and with malice aforethought.
I cannot change your view about it. And I can't give you an ultimate solution rather than mystery.
But I can say causation and permission are two different things.
Considering the atheist scenario, how do you explain the problem of evil?
Do you agree only a conscious mind can conceive/perceive evil?
What is the evolutionary advantage in perceiving evil in nature?
I would like to know your answers to these questions in a purely atheist scenario.
