Miller-Wright Debate, pt.4 - Miller opening speech

James Miller opening speech

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Debate
• Theism
• Atheism
• religion
• Christianity
• Orthodoxy
• skepticism
• spirituality
• vs.
• Louisville
• duPont
• Manual
• high
• school

[COCOPUFF093]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?

i think miller was talkin bout this

[davidwright2000]

This little stanza addresses the classic question as to why God does not prevent evil and suffering. (I will respond in three or four posts, as each one can only be 500 characters)

Let me suggest this: with our finite minds, and in addition to being so bound by time, it's hard for us to make sense of even the small suffering in our lives when it's happening. We think it's the worst thing for us, and only long afterwards do we sometimes recognize the good or necessity of it.

- to be cont'd

[davidwright2000]

I believe God sees a story that is far beyond our understanding. Infinite in knowledge and not bound by time, God can see and understand the purpose and place of suffering. We cannot grasp God's perspective; at best we see it very dimly.

[davidwright2000]

So, to answer the stanza line by line:

Yes, God is willing to prevent evil, but chooses not to do so in order to preserve the free will of the universe.

Answer B: Yes, God is willing to prevent evil and does so to some degree, but not entirely. For example, how do we know God isn't preventing 3/4 of evil right now so that the world can remain functional? Do we have a somewhat workable, livable world? Yes. That may be God and we don't even know it.

[davidwright2000]

If he is able, but not willing--according to our standards--well, that certainly doesn't make God truly malevolent. That just makes him "malevolent" by our standards, which are shortsited, judgmental, temporal, and usually fallacious.

Whence cometh evil? So we are admitting that evil is real and truly exists? If that is the case, then we have a very good case for its opposite: God (the good, pure, perfect, and holy).

[davidwright2000]

"If he is neither able nor willing"-- The fact that evil exists does not mean that God is unable to stop it. If he is unable to stop it, then yes, we might want to call him a demi-god or something. But the Judeo-Christian God is presented as one whe chooses not to stop evil at this time, but certainly can and will end evil in the end (the book of Revelation).

Thanks for reading my long response.

David Wright

[COCOPUFF093]

yeah i guess that does make sense...i mean would we be human without free will? what would life be like with God solving all of our problems? what would we have to live for? thanks!

[skankosaurus]

dear motherfucker...

people who ARE religious take the bible literally everyday. i.e: baptist and evangelical christians.

also, that's not david, that would be james.

[billysongs]

David, if you hadn't used notes people would have said you were just making shit up.

The thing about "the Book" is...it's an account of transcendent moments written from a human perspective. To obsess over its contradictions or take it too literally is to cheapen it and strip it of its truth.

P.S. I don't recall being instructed to "kill homosexuals".