I'll respond to both posts, because I think there are some things that need to be addressed in both.
Sounds good. Glad to have you on the thread.
Just registered for debate, I hope it'll be alright.
So I'll try to get back on 1st topic/OP here
The issue isn't why good people do bad things. The "free will" argument is fine (though still has some implications) with respect to personal decision making.
Again, I think the problem here is people interpreting what shouldn't be.
as I see it, we each have both god and evil in ourselves, it's a struggle that takes place every day, in each of our decisions.
Going for an evil way would probably bring immediate and easy reward, but long term issues
Going for a good way is harder, but rewarding in the long run, making us better human beings overall
And this is where free will comes into play, we are given the choice between good and evil, and this choice will determine our life (and possibly afterlife, I don't yet have a clear opinion on this one)
The issue is why 4 year olds die from famine and diarrhea. Could a compassionate being, with the capacity to stop it, allow it to happen?
Epicurus doesn't seem to think so. Neither do I.
Again, all of this is referential to personal decision making, which isn't the issue.
God has a say in this battle as god is a part of each of us (as well as his/hers/its counterpart)
The battle between good & evil doesn't take place in our world, but in our hearts, in our very lives.
Comes judgment day (whatever that means), the way we chose to live our lives will determine our fate.
We're sinners, evil is inside of each and everyone of us, if we embrace god, it/he/she'll help us to overcome this inner evil (or the famous "inner me/enemy" slice was talking about, in the sense that we are our worst enemies).
if you have faith, you'll be able to fight against your evil part, faith gives you the courage and strength to get back up and get better every day, to deal with the worst that happens to you.
The way I've qualified the word "evil" in the last two pages of posts makes it a little tricky for your claim here.
As I see it, evil has a purpose and this purpose is to test our faith, or even reveal it.
Do you mean to say that a child who dies from dehydration induced by diarrhea has to do so to test our faith? Or a child who dies from progeria? Or a child who is born with his heart outside of his body?
That seems pretty ethically problematic for God.
Feel free to jump in wherever you see a quibble, D. That's what I tend to do in threads, as a general rule.
Sorry bud, but you are confusing the Problem of evil. It implies the standard Judeo christian version of GOD, which presupposes certain characteristics of said GOD.
Your ideas of GOD are all well and good, but they don't apply to this argument.
As to the argument, I would love to post imput but You two guys have said so much on it I don't even know where to begin.
(p.s., I got my bachelors in Philosophy, and love this topic, so I'd love to get involved if any of you want to bring up any part of it again. )
This is off topic, but you'll not that I bolded the word "Judeo-Christian." This is probably the most irritating term that ever comes up. It's a word invented by right-wing Christians in the U.S. during the 1950s to help deputize Orthodox and Conservative Jews into the conservative "family values" movement.
This conception of God does not have nearly the prevalence in Jewish theology that it does in Christian theology. I've written a little bit on this topic (though, if I recall, this discussion occurs primarily in the footnotes) in an article I published last year. (the PDF is available if you click "The Two Gods of Monotheism")