Talk:Problem of evil
It seems to me that the problem of evil can be accused of the same excluded middle as Liar, Lunatic or Lord: how do we know that "God doesn't want evil", "God can prevent evil", and "God knows about all evil" covers all of the bases? Granted, I can't think of any other possibilities, and it looks as though no one else has, either, but how do we know there isn't a "none of the above" explanation that allows for both God and evil? --Arensb 06:57, 17 July 2006 (MST)
- We don't intend to work in a vacuum. That is how the argument goes as I understand it, and there are probably apologetic counter-arguments that are worth considering. Go find some good web pages on the subject and start copying or paraphrasing. If you find a strong Christian response, you can just post it and somebody will come respond to it soon. --Kazim 07:37, 18 July 2006 (MST)
- The added subsection about the excluded middle idea should actually be merged with the introduction. It's a better and worthwhile introduction of the actual argument in question. Too sleepy to do it myself just now.Tatarize 06:15, 19 November 2007 (CST)
The article states: "Animals were suffering long before mankind, Adam and Eve, and original sin came into the picture." Hmm. According to the first creation story in Genesis, the animals were only created one or two days before Adam. Is that even long enough to say they suffered at all before A&E's original sin? Maybe everyone got screwed at the same time. <g> - dcljr 15:18, 28 June 2007 (CDT)
- Only young earth creationists take those days as literal. Most religions think that when the Bible says: "one day" it acctually means: "not a day". So when the Bible says that god made the earth in 6 days, it acctually means 6000 years, or six 7000 year periods, or even 6 periods of a really long time... (One has to wonder what took God so long...) So most religions would think that animals where around for anywhere from 1000 to 7000 years before humans showed up. LtCmd.Lore ??:??, 28 June 2007 (CDT)
- I think "who was here first" is largely irrelevant. They're being punished for something they're not responsible for. The infants that supposedly died in this God's wrathful flood were certainly younger than their 'evil' parents...but the question is, what did they do to deserve being killed. Sans Deity 10:42, 29 June 2007 (CDT)
- Okay, but that's not what I was questioning, nor is it what LCL was commenting on. - dcljr 01:07, 30 June 2007 (CDT)
- Sorry, but it seemed that the point was based on the concept that animals weren't around more than a few days before humans. Let me know if I totally missed the point. But even if they were only around for 2 days before the humans showed up, and if the humans sinned within hours of being created, then at least 2 generations of dayflies would have died. The point is, that god chose to create carniverous animals. They would be carniverous whether the humans sinned or not, so even if Adam and Eve had never sinned, the animals would still be suffering and killing each other to this very day.
- LtCmd.Lore 22:17, 30 June 2007 (CDT)
- No, LCL, you didn't miss my point; you hit it on the head. I was saying that the issues SD brought up ("who was here first" and the appropriateness of the punishment) were deviating from the point of my original comment and your reply. Your points about dayflies and carnivores are well taken... - dcljr 12:52, 2 July 2007 (CDT)
I've removed the following sentences because they didn't flow well in the paragraph they were inserted into:
- "Or the natural disaster are simply natural population control. So if we were to over populate that would create even more suffering than any natural disaster can cause."
Someone else can try to merge this into the article, if I haven't come back to try this myself. Can't do it at the moment... - dcljr 15:25, 14 October 2008 (CDT)
Pointless apologist justification. Where it was placed, it sounds an awful lot like he's saying "maybe God isn't limited or malevolent - maybe he built in a means of population control to prevent worse suffering." :P At best, it just doesn't add to the existing argument. I'd leave it out permanently. --Jaban 04:24, 15 October 2008 (CDT)