I recently hosted Dr. Stephen Napier on the podcast to discuss his excellent article on the problem of divine hiddenness: Is There Non-Resistant Non-Belief? Please enjoy.The Journal of Absolute Truth is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
I will repeat that the concept of "evil" has nothing to do with the creation of the universe or, specifically, that the universe had an entity that was the creator.
Whether something that can be called evil exists is irrelevant to an entity with the power and knowledge to create a universe. If setting up the laws of nature such that life can happen and Evolution can happen, one would expect that some of the consequences of these laws would be situations not optimal for any form of life, let alone all life. The concept of natural selection, which is held up as the means of Evolution, entails many unwanted situations for every form of life. Is natural selection then evil?
So, when arguing for a creator of the universe, one should never make such an argument dependent on characteristics that are not necessary for this creation. If one does so, they paint themselves unnecessarily into a corner for creation to not be the concept of choice. One finds himself debating irrelevant ideas when all that is required is a discussion of the fact of creation.
Introducing "evil" is a "red herring" or a "straw man" argument against a creator. This creator has immense power and intelligence. That is what the evidence points to. Using the word "god," whether capitalized or not, actually gets in the way. It invites all sorts of arguments against the Christian God when they are irrelevant to the primary argument.
Once the proposition of a creator is acknowledged as highly probable, the nature of the creator is fair game to discuss. Then, one can introduce ideas that describe such an entity. Here, "god" or finally, "God" can be the conclusion or, specifically, the characteristics that this entity must have from the evidence of creation.
This video discusses the concept of doubt and its relevance to creation. It should be evident that doubt is necessary for certain types of creators, specifically the Christian God. It is absurd that doubt and undesirable outcomes in creation are at odds with one another. They support the Christian God, who, in Leibniz's view, created the best of all possible worlds. The creator's objectives in the creation should be the focus of discussion after the creation is agreed to.
-----------------
"A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion."
"A straw man fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction."
I have still not seen a coherent definition of the word "evil." That should be the first step in any discussion of it as a factor in understanding the nature of the creator. But whatever definition is accepted, it should come after any discussion of the creation itself and not as part of it.
I will repeat that the concept of "evil" has nothing to do with the creation of the universe or, specifically, that the universe had an entity that was the creator.
Whether something that can be called evil exists is irrelevant to an entity with the power and knowledge to create a universe. If setting up the laws of nature such that life can happen and Evolution can happen, one would expect that some of the consequences of these laws would be situations not optimal for any form of life, let alone all life. The concept of natural selection, which is held up as the means of Evolution, entails many unwanted situations for every form of life. Is natural selection then evil?
So, when arguing for a creator of the universe, one should never make such an argument dependent on characteristics that are not necessary for this creation. If one does so, they paint themselves unnecessarily into a corner for creation to not be the concept of choice. One finds himself debating irrelevant ideas when all that is required is a discussion of the fact of creation.
Introducing "evil" is a "red herring" or a "straw man" argument against a creator. This creator has immense power and intelligence. That is what the evidence points to. Using the word "god," whether capitalized or not, actually gets in the way. It invites all sorts of arguments against the Christian God when they are irrelevant to the primary argument.
Once the proposition of a creator is acknowledged as highly probable, the nature of the creator is fair game to discuss. Then, one can introduce ideas that describe such an entity. Here, "god" or finally, "God" can be the conclusion or, specifically, the characteristics that this entity must have from the evidence of creation.
This video discusses the concept of doubt and its relevance to creation. It should be evident that doubt is necessary for certain types of creators, specifically the Christian God. It is absurd that doubt and undesirable outcomes in creation are at odds with one another. They support the Christian God, who, in Leibniz's view, created the best of all possible worlds. The creator's objectives in the creation should be the focus of discussion after the creation is agreed to.
-----------------
"A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion."
"A straw man fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction."
I have still not seen a coherent definition of the word "evil." That should be the first step in any discussion of it as a factor in understanding the nature of the creator. But whatever definition is accepted, it should come after any discussion of the creation itself and not as part of it.