If there is a God, Why does Evil exist?

[Genivaria]

Only if you think Christians are the only ones who have faith, which they aren't.
TENNO HEIKA! BANZAI!

No, I just think it is off topic.

You think 'faith' is off topic from the topic of 'god' ?
Interesting.

[Montchevre]

I personally have always had a certain level of doubt of the divine. This issue is one of my largest qualms. If there is a god who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, why are there bad things in the world? Why are there famine and war? Why do fools win elections? Why does Haiti have such bad luck all the time?

And no one take the easy way out and say "it's part of God's plan." I've heard that enough times to make my ears bleed.

[Alvecia]

I personally have always had a certain level of doubt of the divine. This issue is one of my largest qualms. If there is a god who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, why are there bad things in the world? Why are there famine and war? Why do fools win elections? Why does Haiti have such bad luck all the time?

And no one take the easy way out and say "it's part of God's plan." I've heard that enough times to make my ears bleed.

The simplest answer is "because God is an all-powerful, illogical, unknowing being".
Which is my problem with the premise. Assuming God basically gives you a free pass to attribute anything you want to a being not held to the laws of nature or logic.

How do you argue against that?

[The Parkus Empire]

No, I just think it is off topic.

You think 'faith' is off topic from the topic of 'god' ?
Interesting.

I think it is off the topic of theodicy

[Godular]

And yet it is even when God supposedly ‘frees’ you, whatever the heck that means.

No, it is not. This is demonstrated by faith itself. Ask a Christian "why" he has faith, and cannot answer, because faith is mystical and not circumstantial. Every other religion will give a solid "why," rational or not

I would disagree.

They don't have faith because they chose or because it's some magical force. They have 'faith' because their parents did, and that's just how they were raised. I wonder how much people would actually choose any given religion if it didn't have an argument from popularity alongside it.

[Neanderthaland]

And yet it is even when God supposedly ‘frees’ you, whatever the heck that means.

No, it is not. This is demonstrated by faith itself. Ask a Christian "why" he has faith, and cannot answer, because faith is mystical and not circumstantial. Every other religion will give a solid "why," rational or not

I've asked many Christians why they have faith, and most of them give an irrational "why."

[Minzerland II]

No, it is not. This is demonstrated by faith itself. Ask a Christian "why" he has faith, and cannot answer, because faith is mystical and not circumstantial. Every other religion will give a solid "why," rational or not

I would disagree.

They don't have faith because they chose or because it's some magical force. They have 'faith' because their parents did, and that's just how they were raised. I wonder how much people would actually choose any given religion if it didn't have an argument from popularity alongside it.

Not all Christians were, or are, raised Christian. How do you explain converts?

[Godular]

I would disagree.

They don't have faith because they chose or because it's some magical force. They have 'faith' because their parents did, and that's just how they were raised. I wonder how much people would actually choose any given religion if it didn't have an argument from popularity alongside it.

Not all Christians were, or are, raised Christian. How do you explain converts?

‘Argument from Popularity’

[Minzerland II]

Not all Christians were, or are, raised Christian. How do you explain converts?

‘Argument from Popularity’

Christianity was not always so popular, so how do you explain the very first converts, when it was relatively obscure?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

‘Argument from Popularity’

Christianity was not always so popular, so how do you explain the very first converts, when it was relatively obscure?

Some people are credulous. That's why Scientology and the LDS exist, after all.

[Minzerland II]

Christianity was not always so popular, so how do you explain the very first converts, when it was relatively obscure?

Some people are credulous. That's why Scientology and the LDS exist, after all.

Sure, I am willing to accept that some people are credulous. This all still runs contrary to Godular's assertions, though, which is the point I was making.

[Neutraligon]

Some people are credulous. That's why Scientology and the LDS exist, after all.

Sure, I am willing to accept that some people are credulous. This all still runs contrary to Godular's assertions, though, which is the point I was making.

Godular's assertion holds true for many different people, it is why you can tend to predict the religion of people based on where they are currently living, or the religion of the parent's

[Samarinda]

I personally have always had a certain level of doubt of the divine. This issue is one of my largest qualms. If there is a god who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, why are there bad things in the world? Why are there famine and war? Why do fools win elections? Why does Haiti have such bad luck all the time?

And no one take the easy way out and say "it's part of God's plan." I've heard that enough times to make my ears bleed.

i always think theres should be two options if God is exist:

first, if god is multiple gods means theres good god and its equivalent the evil god so then what we call "life" is a bilateral agreement between them that should be settled on a religion teaching
second, monotheistic God means God is the good and evil itself since He so omnipotent He creates everything including good and evil, hence this devil thing only agitates human to do evil thing and devil not creating the evil itself.

since its imposible to become equivalent of good without any equivalent of evil version of Himself expect He was the good and the evil itself

[Minzerland II]

Sure, I am willing to accept that some people are credulous. This all still runs contrary to Godular's assertions, though, which is the point I was making.

Godular's assertion holds true for many different people, it is why you can tend to predict the religion of people based on where they are currently living, or the religion of the parent's

Godular was not asserting that it holds true 'for many different people', but for all religious people; he asserted that the only reason people are religious is because their parents are and the only reason people convert to a religion is because of its popularity, which, I think, is quite flimsy.

[Lost Memories]

Sure, I am willing to accept that some people are credulous. This all still runs contrary to Godular's assertions, though, which is the point I was making.

Godular's assertion holds true for many different people, it is why you can tend to predict the religion of people based on where they are currently living, or the religion of the parent's

The ‘Argument from Popularity’ hold true for lots of things, not only religions.

I can reliably guess a person living in Czech Republic is irreligious, or atheist. That's because of ‘Argument from Popularity’ too.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Not all Christians were, or are, raised Christian. How do you explain converts?

‘Argument from Popularity’

How does that explain people converting to small religions, neo-paganism and things like that? Or the constant inquires about things like conversion to Zoroastrianism which is also very quite small?

[Godular]

‘Argument from Popularity’

Christianity was not always so popular, so how do you explain the very first converts, when it was relatively obscure?

People not knowing better. A guy who says he knows the answers doesn't get as much traction as they used to.

[Godular]

‘Argument from Popularity’

How does that explain people converting to small religions, neo-paganism and things like that? Or the constant inquires about things like conversion to Zoroastrianism which is also very quite small?

At that juncture it shifts over to my point of what people would choose if they were able to disregard what they were raised into. Maybe some would indeed choose the path of Christianity, maybe some would choose paganism, buddhism, or no religion whatsoever, but such a decision would indeed have reasons attributed to it no matter what religion it is. Claiming one's own faith as devoid of circumstance and possessed of some mystical essence is pretty damn farcical.

[Minzerland II]

Christianity was not always so popular, so how do you explain the very first converts, when it was relatively obscure?

People not knowing better. A guy who says he knows the answers doesn't get as much traction as they used to.

Could you be anymore arrogant than this? You're literally suggesting that converts to Christianity don't 'know better', as if they are children in need of your guidance. We are done here.

[Connori Pilgrims]

I personally have always had a certain level of doubt of the divine. This issue is one of my largest qualms. If there is a god who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, why are there bad things in the world? Why are there famine and war? Why do fools win elections? Why does Haiti have such bad luck all the time?

And no one take the easy way out and say "it's part of God's plan." I've heard that enough times to make my ears bleed.

IMO, the problem with the packaging (i.e. its teaching and the way it's taught) of Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion is precisely its tendency to color the world as a simplistic Black and White one (which leads to the questions you posed above).

While this may have a point as far as teaching children's minds a simple value and belief system for purposes of control and socialization, it becomes very problematic once it crashes against the nuances of the world into adulthood. It becomes even more irritating when this style of proselytizing and catechism persists when your audience are already adults who've already started feeling the fractures from such disconnects.

One of the funny assumptions of "God having a plan" is 1.) it's a plan that human beings can understand (either now or in the past millions of years we've been alive), instead of some Blue and Orange alien morality and 2.) it's actually a plan that cares about the individual, as opposed to being a grander-scale infinity project that thinks more of Humanity as a whole rather than individuals and therefore is tolerant of human casualties.

Then again, most other religions aren't exempt from binary worldviews either. All of them to some extent have some good/ideal/goal to achieve and an antithesis/evil/bad to avoid. It is ultimately a matter of degree and to what you invoke to achieve/avoid said thing.

[Godular]

People not knowing better. A guy who says he knows the answers doesn't get as much traction as they used to.

Could you be anymore arrogant than this? You're literally suggesting that converts to Christianity don't 'know better', as if they are children in need of your guidance. We are done here.

No, I'm outright stating that people back in those days weren't nearly as well educated as they are nowadays. You see a negative connotation in the comparison to children but I do not. Like children, I do not blame them for their ignorance. Such was simply a product of their time. Reports of certain 'otherworldly occurrences' held much more weight in such times than they would now. This does not however constitute evidence of a firm foundation for that belief, and should not be construed as such.

Getting offended at such a thing rather than asking for clarification only serves to reinforce my point.

[Minzerland II]

Could you be anymore arrogant than this? You're literally suggesting that converts to Christianity don't 'know better', as if they are children in need of your guidance. We are done here.

No, I'm outright stating that people back in those days weren't nearly as well educated as they are nowadays. You see a negative connotation in the comparison to children but I do not. Like children, I do not blame them for their ignorance. Such was simply a product of their time. Reports of certain 'otherworldly occurrences' held much more weight in such times than they would now. This does not however constitute evidence of a firm foundation for that belief, and should not be construed as such.

Getting offended at such a thing rather than asking for clarification only serves to reinforce my point.

The implications of your argument is clear: If converts who largely did not possess an education 'don't know better', then converts who possess an education, as of 2018, are implied to be worse because they should 'know better' and yet still believe in Christianity (or whatever religion they follow). This clearly implies that the religious are gullible and stupid, only choosing to follow a particular religion because their parents do and because many other people do, or because they 'don't know better'. Hence why I called you arrogant: you assume the religious are children in need of your guidance.

[Pilarcraft]

No, I'm outright stating that people back in those days weren't nearly as well educated as they are nowadays. You see a negative connotation in the comparison to children but I do not. Like children, I do not blame them for their ignorance. Such was simply a product of their time. Reports of certain 'otherworldly occurrences' held much more weight in such times than they would now. This does not however constitute evidence of a firm foundation for that belief, and should not be construed as such.

Getting offended at such a thing rather than asking for clarification only serves to reinforce my point.

The implications of your argument is clear: If converts who largely did not possess an education 'don't know better', then converts who possess an education, as of 2018, are implied to be worse because they should 'know better' and yet still believe in Christianity (or whatever religion they follow). This clearly implies that the religious are gullible and stupid, only choosing to follow a particular religion because their parents do and because many other people do, or because they 'don't know better'. Hence why I called you arrogant: you assume the religious are children in need of your guidance.

no offense, but if, in the year of our lord 2018, a person, of his own sound mind, legitimately converts into a religion with mythical elements such as Christianity, and legitimately believes The Bible, word for word, then yes. he is in need of guidance. (The same, of course, can not be said for those who don't take the Bible's word literally, but follow the gist of it.)

[Washington Resistance Army]

The implications of your argument is clear: If converts who largely did not possess an education 'don't know better', then converts who possess an education, as of 2018, are implied to be worse because they should 'know better' and yet still believe in Christianity (or whatever religion they follow). This clearly implies that the religious are gullible and stupid, only choosing to follow a particular religion because their parents do and because many other people do, or because they 'don't know better'. Hence why I called you arrogant: you assume the religious are children in need of your guidance.

no offense, but if, in the year of our lord 2018, a person, of his own sound mind, legitimately converts into a religion with mythical elements such as Christianity, and legitimately believes The Bible, word for word, then yes. he is in need of guidance. (The same, of course, can not be said for those who don't take the Bible's word literally, but follow the gist of it.)

Biblical literalism is very much restricted to American protestants, that's not a common thing.

[Neutraligon]

No, I'm outright stating that people back in those days weren't nearly as well educated as they are nowadays. You see a negative connotation in the comparison to children but I do not. Like children, I do not blame them for their ignorance. Such was simply a product of their time. Reports of certain 'otherworldly occurrences' held much more weight in such times than they would now. This does not however constitute evidence of a firm foundation for that belief, and should not be construed as such.

Getting offended at such a thing rather than asking for clarification only serves to reinforce my point.

The implications of your argument is clear: If converts who largely did not possess an education 'don't know better', then converts who possess an education, as of 2018, are implied to be worse because they should 'know better' and yet still believe in Christianity (or whatever religion they follow).

That very much depends. A person could very well have had a personal experience that was enough for them to convert, and for all I know that personal experience really had something to do with a God. If they had such a personal experience then there is very little I can say except I do not think that experience was caused by a god/I do not believe it happened as they said/etc. Someone else's personal experience is not sufficient for me to believe. That being said, I do think if a person is convinced because of bad reasons and they have a certain type of education (how to think logically and how to go about figuring out what is the truth) I do think they should have known better.

This clearly implies that the religious are gullible and stupid

No, not necessarily. You seem to assume that just because someone is convinced due to bad reasoning that they are in general gullible or stupid, and that is not the case. People are the sum of their thoughts and actions, and a person can be gullible or act stupidly in one instance without being in general gullible or stupid.

only choosing to follow a particular religion because their parents do and because many other people do, or because they 'don't know better'.

Children have a very good evolutionary reason to believe what their parents and those in the tribe teach them, that being it is a survival mechanism. Beliefs that are implanted young into children tend to last longer and be more firmly held then those that are learned later, likely because they become the center of other beliefs and thoughts (core beliefs upon which much of the thoughts a person has are based). Do I think those that blindly follow what their parents believed are not thinking, yes, Do I think they are stupid or gullible to do so, no. Do I think they should know better, not necessarily.

Hence why I called you arrogant: you assume the religious are children in need of your guidance.

And yet that is exactly how people of varying religious beliefs treat those outside their religion (if they aren't outright just killing them of course).