If God wants to destroy evil...

[Zarathustra]

God created everything that has been, is, and is going to be in existence. He created the Earth and the Heavens. He created the Lake of Fire in which he casts sinners. He created Good, and He created evil. Does not the old adage says "I have created you, and so can I destroy you"?

If God wanted to, couldn't He, in theory, destroy evil with no need for the battle of the apocalypse?

[harvey1]

The main reason for atheism is that the physical evidence does not point to the existence of God (as they see it) and not on any percieved logical contradiction of some half-baked argument.

It's so amazing to me that we share so many beliefs but differ so widely on the issues surrounding those beliefs. I think Spetey's arguments are very well constructed and very challenging. I don't think they are half-baked at all. Where we dramatically differ is that I see atheism as essentially an irrational belief in other areas (e.g., the special nature of the physical constants, etc.) and that I think the PoE must be seen within that larger framework. I think theists must still address the PoE in the manner that someone like Spetey demands, but not in terms of providing a solution, rather, in terms of providing reasonable accounts as to why those premises are misconceived.

[Curious]

The main reason for atheism is that the physical evidence does not point to the existence of God (as they see it) and not on any percieved logical contradiction of some half-baked argument.

It's so amazing to me that we share so many beliefs but differ so widely on the issues surrounding those beliefs. I think Spetey's arguments are very well constructed and very challenging. I don't think they are half-baked at all. Where we dramatically differ is that I see atheism as essentially an irrational belief in other areas (e.g., the special nature of the physical constants, etc.) and that I think the PoE must be seen within that larger framework. I think theists must still address the PoE in the manner that someone like Spetey demands, but not in terms of providing a solution, rather, in terms of providing reasonable accounts as to why those premises are misconceived.

It's not that I believe the argument is totally unworthy of examination but it is very limited. As it stands, the goodness or omnipotence of such a god cannot be ascertained from the POE unless the argument first takes into consideration an additional motivation for the god. To say that only a certain level of evil (or none at all) is consistent with such a god we must first add an additional argument that the god in question actively restricts the activity or existence of evil. It is possible to perform only good actions and not actively seek out and destroy evil wherever it may be. Spetey gives an argument regarding a required level of evil but such a required level of evil, if limited, has it's own problems such as the violation of free will (this would constitute an act of mental slavery and therefore could be considered evil itself). As I said before, the idea that my kicking the dog would contribute to such a set limit is a little hard to swallow. If the set limit was reached then I would be compelled not to kick the dog or perform any other action that was contrary to that which is good. If then we are to avoid the problem of violation of free will and still adhere to a required level of evil then we could say that all acts of evil are necessary so that the repercussions of such acts can be experienced. This is the problem with attempting to show that unnecessary evil exists, there is absolutely no way to know what this level might conceivably be and so there really can be no valid conclusion concerning this point.
It is in this way that the argument is half-baked, not in the sense that it is completely ridiculous in theory but that it is only partially thought through. That is what half-baked means in the context it was used here.

[Cathar1950]

Curious wrote:

This is the problem with attempting to show that unnecessary evil exists, there is absolutely no way to know what this level might conceivably be and so there really can be no valid conclusion concerning this point.

There doesn't seem to be a valid conclusion. I tend to like the definition of good as that which works, fits in and makes sense, and evil being that which doesn't work , doesn't fit and makes no sense. It is at least workable. We humans due to our consciousness are involved in a struggle with our selves. We continue to reach and understand. It seems that Platonic and Jewish ideas one evil have been crammed together in some strange ways. If you read the Ot it is hard to say God is Good or love. I belive this is due to the writers and their times. When the Tora was being put together in various stages, it was designed to keep the people separate and controlled. Ezra with Persian backing scrambled to make a coherent set of rules and laws founded on perceived and invented history so that they could be governed by their new rulers and lord,
Cyrus the Messiah. Often a problem with Christianity in it's present forms seems to by pass the struggle and dumps it all on God. They think they are saved, usually meaning the after life and everything is taken care of. But we are in the world and part of it. I wanted to make a bumper sticker that said "Jesus now and then". One person wrote that Jesus was pointing to God and Christianity has been staring at his finger ever since.
When I hear things like is Jesus your personal savior and Lord I wonder if they even know what they are talking about or are they just buz words used for collective belonging. Jesus dyeing for our sin. paul to his credit and misunderstanding was talking about the community of believers. Much the way we say a soldier died for his country or for us. Is jesus in your heart? What does that really mean? More slogans and buz words lacking substance. When I pray I pray alone. It is personal and a form of meditation. I am trying to listening to the small voice in the wind. if God never changes your not going to find the evidence in the Bible. rather you going to find the opposite. We change and grow and any good concept of God is going to grow and change with us. I belive Atheist and Theist are in the same boat only the Theist is unable to admit it and use their definition of faith to hide. If this is all there is then it is important and meaningful. If there is more then it is related to this and is important and meaningful.
It is a struggle and those that have closed the door thru religion have given up and not found the truth. Religion or the spiritual is fluid and dynamic. I have know and read Atheist that are every bit as spiritual(what ever that means or is defined) as any Christian , Jew, Muslim
Hindu, Buddhist , Animist, or Pagan. Sometimes they surpass them.
When I hear some one say it must be bible based I think how limiting.
The Bible writers and editors were not limited even if they followed rules as Donald Harman Akenson points out when he talks about inventing the bible. I do not propose only reason but it helps. There is more then reason for we have to have something to reason about.

[Curious]

One person wrote that Jesus was pointing to God and Christianity has been staring at his finger ever since.

Nice quote. I think this is to blame for much of the stick that atheists beat theists with. There seems to be some confusion among many between the message and the messenger.

[Cathar1950]

It is sometimes my point of contension.
It may cause a lot of problems.

[QED]

I just heard of a tragic accident where a father accidentally killed his son and it made me think of this thread. Awful things like this (and worse) are happening on a daily basis. Well, I've heard the arguments and rationalizations and I am quite frankly left numb. Of course it can be argued that God's will is for there to be 'net good' and simply by proposing an arbitrarily long time-frame for this goodness to come about, any believer can see that mercy might be forthcoming in the long-run. And by proposing an Afterlife, all the pain and suffering is washed away. Or is it? What of those who are left behind? Do they all deserve such torment? Maybe a callous mind might feel the Policeman deserves it, but there is no shortage of other tragic mistakes that loving people can make.

There can be no doubt that innocents die before their time: it has been suggested that God's foresight might expedite the removal of evil before it gets to fruition and that accidents and natural disasters provide the means to this end. But this has obvious problems: Aircraft accidents for example, frequently result in no survivors whatsoever. Is it honestly being suggested that all the passengers and crew were know to be about to contribute to a greater evil than their own untimely demise? Such evaluations are simply preposterous.

The conclusion therefore ought to be that God is either indifferent to the daily anguish and suffering that besets mankind, or he simply does not exist. knives are sharp and the ground is hard. Neither of these care for anything or anyone which is why we ought to learn to care for each other.

[Cathar1950]

QED wrote:

The conclusion therefore ought to be that God is either indifferent to the daily anguish and suffering that besets mankind, or he simply does not exist. knives are sharp and the ground is hard. Neither of these care for anything or anyone which is why we ought to learn to care for each other.

I think that is the Golden Rule, if I am not mistaken.
The

care for each other

.
Your points are well spoken. The so called attributes of God often do not fit reality. It seems we have to make explanations such as

There can be no doubt that innocents die before their time: it has been suggested that God's foresight might expedite the removal of evil before it gets to fruition and that accidents and natural disasters provide the means to this end.

I have to agree it is

preposterous

.
Is God all powerful?
They said this of the Pharaoh.
The Pharaoh was also all seeing , all wise, and the judge of all the earth.
Maybe QED we are God's power. Maybe not.
It is a sympathetic view of God if we use God as an analogy or metaphor.

care for each other

.
It seems it is a good idea with or with out god.

[harvey1]

QED,

That was a terrible tragedy. It is so heartbreaking to hear of the terrible things that happen.

But, let's understand something. The world operates on naturalistic principles. That's the world that God set up for good reason. In the process evils like this are a consequence, and we are all vunerable to them. As you said, we need to learn to care for each other. Rather than draw away from God, you should do the opposite. You should draw closer to God.

Eventually this naturalistic order will be overturned, and a new age will come about where there is none of this pain and suffering. God's intent for the world will accomplish this. But, until then, we have to pray for the Lord's protection and love over us.

[QED]

But, let's understand something. The world operates on naturalistic principles. That's the world that God set up for good reason. In the process evils like this are a consequence, and we are all vunerable to them. As you said, we need to learn to care for each other...

...Eventually this naturalistic order will be overturned, and a new age will come about where there is none of this pain and suffering. God's intent for the world will accomplish this. But, until then, we have to pray for the Lord's protection and love over us.

Excuse me, but by your own admission "God has made a world with sharp knives with good reason". No amount of prayer will protect us from them and no amount of divine love will prevent them causing tragedies. You agree that it's up to us do this for each other so why on Earth should we pray to something that is not on the other end of the line? This much is plain for all to see. Not once have these hopeless remedies been effective for mankind so the only rational conclusion is that whatever made the world is totally indifferent to its content. Now, you raise this notion of a new age -- a new world where none of this bad stuff happens -- what relevance does this have to the real world that we live in now? Pardon me for pointing out the obvious but it's all too easy for you to concoct such a fantasy and at best it would only serve as a palliative, not a cure for the real condition which is our obvious mortality in the here and now.

If we talk in terms of fitting data to theories all the evidence points to us operating within a vast unattended machine. The machinery turns and we come and go. Nothing is hovering over the 'emergency stop button' and if things go wrong the machinery just keeps on turning. This is not just an atheist 'spin' on things -- it's what awaits us all if we are daft enough to stick our heads out the window of a moving train.

I cannot believe that you could be the least bit satisfied with your account of things on this score. Bear in mind that the construct of Christianity has been channeled through the fallible minds of theologians for millennia for many different human motives and has, as its essential ingredients, key concepts that are beyond validation. You seem to disagree with this observation but have yet to offer any workable tests to refute my claim. And so you shouldn't because ultimately, in common with everyone including me, all you really have is faith... well, here you have at least one thing that ought to give it a violent shake.

[Creed-X]

coz God is mercifull.....