Free Will and the Problem of Evil

[Pegg]

explain the struggle to survive? is that evil?
there is one position available and 2 need to be in this particular position in order to sustain their life. would you consider the one giving up that position good and the one determined to get it evil...?
or are both evil for wanting to live?

the idea that we must 'survive' at all costs is completely contrary to human nature.

People have willingly died to save another. How many firefighters died in the World Trade buildings trying to save others. If you say 'well thats their job' then it is proof that 'survival of the fittest' is against human nature.

We look after our weakest because we were made in Gods image, in his likeness.

 

[Straw Dog]

the idea that we must 'survive' at all costs is completely contrary to human nature.

People have willingly died to save another. How many firefighters died in the World Trade buildings trying to save others. If you say 'well thats their job' then it is proof that 'survival of the fittest' is against human nature.

We look after our weakest because we were made in Gods image, in his likeness.

I agree that there's much more to life than simply surviving and human beings have great capacities for altruistic acts, not just with people but toward other animals as well. Bonobos and many other social animals also express altruism in different ways.

You have to admit though that the fundamental structure of how life perpetuates itself is kind of cruel if it was consciously orchestrated that way. Think about it. We are required to kill and eat other life forms. Why would a just God require us to constantly kill animal life to perpetuate ourselves? Why wouldn't the spirit be sufficient in sustaining us? Unless you don't see animals as having their own vital energy ("soul" you might call it).

 

[Pegg]

I agree that there's much more to life than simply surviving and human beings have great capacities for altruistic acts, not just with people but toward other animals as well. Bonobos and many other social animals also express altruism in different ways.

You have to admit though that the fundamental structure of how life perpetuates itself is kind of cruel if it was consciously orchestrated that way. Think about it. We are required to kill and eat other life forms. Why would a just God require us to constantly kill animal life to perpetuate ourselves? Why wouldn't the spirit be sufficient in sustaining us? Unless you don't see animals as having their own vital energy ("soul" you might call it).

my belief is that God never intended for humans to eat animals in the first place. the genesis account of creation shows that Adam and Eve were instructed to eat all the vegetables and fruits and seeds...there was no mention about eating of animal meat until after the flood, thats around 2,000 years after Adams creation.

And the scriptures which foretell the future of life under the rule of Gods kingdom shows that animals will be changed and mankind will not be a threat to them... so I take that to mean that man and animals will not eat each other in the future.

 

[Straw Dog]

my belief is that God never intended for humans to eat animals in the first place. the genesis account of creation shows that Adam and Eve were instructed to eat all the vegetables and fruits and seeds...there was no mention about eating of animal meat until after the flood, thats around 2,000 years after Adams creation.

And the scriptures which foretell the future of life under the rule of Gods kingdom shows that animals will be changed and mankind will not be a threat to them... so I take that to mean that man and animals will not eat each other in the future.

That's a nice vegetarian view of Genesis. I like it.

Unfortunately even if humans stopped eating meat, the rest of the animal kingdom is subject to this kill-or-be-killed philosophy of survival. Why make nature so cruel to begin with?

I don't know anything about the scriptures being capable of foretelling the future since they've seemed to be incorrect so far in terms of many different ethical teachings. For instance, we no longer practice slavery and women are increasingly being given equal rights around the planet. Both of which were reversed in the Bible.

It's one thing to say that animals will not eat each other in the future, but why the long wait? It's been millions and millions of years of this. Why play it out like that? What is the purpose is permitting the cruelty of the life-death-eating cycle? Surely an all-powerful God could construct a better format for perpetuating life than this.

 

[idav]

my belief is that God never intended for humans to eat animals in the first place. the genesis account of creation shows that Adam and Eve were instructed to eat all the vegetables and fruits and seeds...there was no mention about eating of animal meat until after the flood, thats around 2,000 years after Adams creation.

And the scriptures which foretell the future of life under the rule of Gods kingdom shows that animals will be changed and mankind will not be a threat to them... so I take that to mean that man and animals will not eat each other in the future.

Meat iss a luxury we wouldn't have without the technology of fire. Well there is sushi!

 

[Walkntune]

my belief is that God never intended for humans to eat animals in the first place. the genesis account of creation shows that Adam and Eve were instructed to eat all the vegetables and fruits and seeds...there was no mention about eating of animal meat until after the flood, thats around 2,000 years after Adams creation.

And the scriptures which foretell the future of life under the rule of Gods kingdom shows that animals will be changed and mankind will not be a threat to them... so I take that to mean that man and animals will not eat each other in the future.

They lived longer too didn't they?

 

[Pegg]

That's a nice vegetarian view of Genesis. I like it.

Unfortunately even if humans stopped eating meat, the rest of the animal kingdom is subject to this kill-or-be-killed philosophy of survival. Why make nature so cruel to begin with?

perhaps it was not meant to be like that even for the animals.
The hebrew scriptures describe what life will be like in Gods new world...it says:

Isaiah 11: 6 And the wolf will actually reside for a while with the male lamb, and with the kid the leopard itself will lie down, and the calf and the maned young lion and the well-fed animal all together; and a mere little boy will be leader over them. 7 And the cow and the bear themselves will feed; together their young ones will lie down. And even the lion will eat straw just like the bull. 8 And the sucking child will certainly play upon the hole of the cobra; and upon the light aperture of a poisonous snake will a weaned child actually put his own hand. 9 They will not do any harm or cause any ruin in all my holy mountain; because the earth will certainly be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters are covering the very sea.

From this I take it that the animals will not be in fear of each other because they will cease to eat meat.

We only know life as meat eaters because that is all we have seen...and yes, it is cruel, i agree. But we are also living in a world which is not governed by God. Mankind came out from under Gods rulership back in the garden of Eden and they have not lived in a world where Gods purpose and will exists since that time. So the world we have today is what happens when we are alienated from God.

What life will be like when the whole earth is reunited with him... will be amazing.

I don't know anything about the scriptures being capable of foretelling the future since they've seemed to be incorrect so far in terms of many different ethical teachings. For instance, we no longer practice slavery and women are increasingly being given equal rights around the planet. Both of which were reversed in the Bible.

slavery existed long before the hebrew scriptures were written...it exists because of mankind ruling themselves. God knew what the consequences of mans rule would lead to...way back in the beginning, he told eve she would come to be dominated by the man:
Gen 3:16 To the woman he said: “I shall greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in birth pangs you will bring forth children, and your craving will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.”
mans domination began over the weaker of the two, the woman, and since that time, man has gone on to dominate over all living things in a cruel and manipulative way. The bible says at Ecclesiates 8:9 All this I have seen, and there was an applying of my heart to every work that has been done under the sun, [during] the time that man has dominated man to his injury.

Slavery is a man made construction. Under Gods rule, there would be no slavery and what God promises is at Micah 4:3 4 And they will actually sit, each one under his vine and under his fig tree, and there will be no one making [them] tremble; for the very mouth of Jehovah of armies has spoken [it]

God has permitted mankind to rule and govern in their own way, but we can be sure that God will do it far differently, he says of himself:
Isaiah 55:8 “For the thoughts of YOU people are not my thoughts, nor are my ways YOUR ways,” is the utterance of Jehovah

It's one thing to say that animals will not eat each other in the future, but why the long wait? It's been millions and millions of years of this. Why play it out like that? What is the purpose is permitting the cruelty of the life-death-eating cycle? Surely an all-powerful God could construct a better format for perpetuating life than this.

Well in the scheme of things, there has only been 6,000 years of human history. According to Genesis, man and animals have only been meat eaters since they came off the Ark 4,000 years ago. And in Gods eyes, 4,000 years is only 4 days.

So it hasnt been all that long a time from his perspective. From ours, yes its a long time, but it will soon be over and life will be the way God wants it to be. He makes this promise:

Hosea 2:18 "And for them I shall certainly conclude a covenant in that day in connection with the wild beast of the field and with the flying creature of the heavens and the creeping thing of the ground, and the bow and the sword and war I shall break out of the land, and I will make them lie down in security"


We are living in the 'last days' right now, and it wont be long before we see major changes taking place. The earth will become a paradise, and Gods promises will be fulfilled and at that time this scripture will become a reality:
Psalm 145:16 You are opening your hand
And satisfying the desire of every living thing

 

[Pegg]

Meat iss a luxury we wouldn't have without the technology of fire. Well there is sushi!

hmmmm sushi


I find it intriguing to see how little children resist the eating of meat. Its like they have a natural instinct in them telling them that eating animals is bad. If i dont mush up meat for my little ones, they wouldnt eat it... as they got older they ate it, but when they were around 4 and 5, if they knew it was a chicken or a cow we were eating, they would always leave it on the plate.

 

[Pegg]

They lived longer too didn't they?

yes thats a good point, they lived far longer then we do.

But i also think their long lifespan also had something to do with the atmosphere...less radiation hit the earth while the water canopy was up... after the flood, the increased radiation from the sun would have shortened lifespans

 

[Stevicus]

Regarding the topic of free will and the problem of evil, I've been thinking about this topic for quite some time now.

Because of the way that we've been designed and created, along with the situation that we've been thrown into without even asking for it, I wonder just how much we can be held responsible for any alleged "sins" we might have committed in this life.

For one thing, I never asked to be born. Why should I be held responsible for something I never asked for to begin with? Why was I born into this life into a dysfunctional, lower middle class family? So much of one's life, upbringing, and the direction one takes is based on early, formative factors which are outside of the individual's control. A lot of it is based on nature and how we've been hardwired by our Creator.

I would suggest that humans can't be held responsible for design flaws, which seem to be the root of many (if not all) sins that human beings commit. Looking at the Seven Deadly Sins, it makes me wonder.

Lust: I don't see how God can blame any human being for lust, since He was the one who created us with sexual desire in the first place, along with the instinct for reproduction. He intentionally gave us a short, limited lifespan with an even shorter window of reproduction which is less than half of the average lifespan. Avoiding lustful, impure thoughts is quite a tall order for most human beings, especially those of us of the male gender. (Also, someone born in 17th century New England might have an easier time avoiding this particular sin than those born in late 20th century California, so the circumstances God puts us in are also outside of our control.)

Gluttony: I often wonder what God must have been thinking when He decided that human beings would need a certain amount of daily caloric intake to survive, along with a balanced diet of a variety of food groups. This, coupled with putting us on a planet with a relative scarcity of food. This creates a psychological effect such that, when humans do have a surplus of food, natural instincts kick in and people tend to pile it on. This is considered gluttony, but it would never have existed in the first place if God designed human beings in such a way that we could survive on a single grain of rice for an entire year (or a single oak leaf or a handful of moss or something like that). But no, He designed us so that we have to eat every day in order to survive. Is it our fault that we're forced to compensate for a design flaw?

Greed: Pretty much the same as gluttony. Scarcity of food and other resources is what leads to hoarding and the sin of greed. God could have made food and other resources more plentiful in order to reduce greed, fighting, war, and other consequences resulting from a paucity of resources. But instead, He chose not to do that. Why? Only God knows.

Sloth: This wouldn't even be a sin if there wasn't a scarcity of resources. If we only had to spend 15-30 minutes a day in the gathering of food and other resources necessary for survival, then we could spend most of our time lazing in the sun. But historically, it hasn't been that easy, as people have to spend most of their waking hours devoted to earning their daily bread, and even then, it's not always enough.

Then, of course, there's the need for sleep, which humans need 6-8 hours daily - one-third of their entire lives. God designed us that way. Why create things like fatigue and the need for sleep? Even worse is that God, in His infinite wisdom, decided to create insomnia. So, imagine the poor tired human who has to get up early for work the next day, and God decides out of the blue, "Hey, I think I'm going to mess with this guy so that he can't get any sleep. Then, when he's dragging at work the next morning, I can condemn him for the sin of 'Sloth'." Human beings had to create sleeping pills for this reason, and when we wake up all tired and groggy, we then need stimulants. We're forced to enhance our free will because God chose not to give us any free will in this most essential area.

Wrath: God chose to give us emotions. He chose to force us into a limited existence with the need for constant maintenance and physical needs/desires. We're locked into a process of aging and deterioration which we were given no control over, along with a scarcity of resources, hunger, fear, predators, harsh climates, disasters, earthquakes, floods. Not to mention the fact that we were created with a mass of nerves which detect discomfort and pain at the slightest problem. How can God possibly blame any human being for wrath? It makes no sense, especially since He was the one who created the situation to begin with.

Envy: Again, there would be no envy if there was no scarcity. God created scarcity, so God is ultimately responsible for the consequences which result from that. Likewise, God created human beings in a variety of different and uneven situations. A person who is born into a poor family might envy the one who was born into a wealthy family. Since God is responsible for deciding who is born into which family, then God has already started off the person born into a poor family with a handicap which would make him more susceptible to the deadly sin of envy. Similarly, someone born with a physical disability might be more inclined to envy those who don't have any disabilities.

Pride: This can be manifested in many different ways, but a lot of it might be attributed to our limited existence, something that we have no control over. We only have, on average, 70-75 years to accomplish something meaningful in our lives and even less time to actually sit back and enjoy those achievements. Pride is a way of compensating for that serious design flaw that we have absolutely no control over.

----

All in all, I think most of our choices are merely responses to things we have no control over, such as our survival instincts, our instinct to reproduce, our physical weaknesses (hunger, fatigue, susceptibility to disease, old age, a time limit to our existence, etc.), as well as the natural tendency to avoid discomfort, suffering, or pain of any kind.

Under those circumstances, how can we truly have free will? How is it possible to avoid evil when people are given a survival instinct in a harsh existence with limited resources in which only the strongest and fittest can survive? What kind of choice is that?

 

[Straw Dog]

perhaps it was not meant to be like that even for the animals.

From this I take it that the animals will not be in fear of each other because they will cease to eat meat.

We only know life as meat eaters because that is all we have seen...and yes, it is cruel, i agree. But we are also living in a world which is not governed by God. Mankind came out from under Gods rulership back in the garden of Eden and they have not lived in a world where Gods purpose and will exists since that time. So the world we have today is what happens when we are alienated from God.

What life will be like when the whole earth is reunited with him... will be amazing

Oh, I see that you have a literal interpretation of the Bible. Obviously I don't. I'll try to debate from your perspective, though.

Are you saying that mankind was able to overthrow God's kingdom on earth? How is that possible? God is the one with all the power and knowledge, and yet he alienated us from the Garden? We didn't choose to leave. We were forced to leave. Why couldn't he just forgive Adam and Eve way back then when they realized that they had sinned? That way, this whole history of violence and suffering could have been averted.

slavery existed long before the hebrew scriptures were written...it exists because of mankind ruling themselves. God knew what the consequences of mans rule would lead to...way back in the beginning, he told eve she would come to be dominated by the man: mans domination began over the weaker of the two, the woman, and since that time, man has gone on to dominate over all living things in a cruel and manipulative way.

Slavery is a man made construction. Under Gods rule, there would be no slavery
God has permitted mankind to rule and govern in their own way, but we can be sure that God will do it far differently

Where in the Bible does God say that he is actually against slavery but only allowing it for a short time? The verses I've read he seems to be endorsing and condoning it. He told the Jewish people to make slaves of other nations that that unjustly invaded.

Well in the scheme of things, there has only been 6,000 years of human history. According to Genesis, man and animals have only been meat eaters since they came off the Ark 4,000 years ago. And in Gods eyes, 4,000 years is only 4 days.

So it hasn't been all that long a time from his perspective. From ours, yes its a long time, but it will soon be over and life will be the way God wants it to be. He makes this promise.

We are living in the 'last days' right now, and it wont be long before we see major changes taking place. The earth will become a paradise, and Gods promises will be fulfilled and at that time this scripture will become a reality

6,000 years? The earth has been here for at least four and a half billion years and life for about a billion years. The modern human species is at least 200,000 years old. I take it that there aren't very many JW scientists? It's not a matter of opinion, the evidence speaks for itself if you would just do a little research. There's no anti-religious conspiracy of scientists. They reach mass consensus about things through independent observations, experimentation, and research.

Christians have believed that they were in the last days since the time of Jesus. Jesus even told his followers that it would occur within their very lifetimes, and then it didn't. Every subsequent generation of Christians have also thought that the end times were coming soon, but never did. The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the last days begun back in 1914 and then that it would reach fruition and finality on two separate occasions in 1935 and 1975, which were both wrong. As time progresses this belief becomes more and more absurd. So you'll understand why I don't believe you now?

I know the JW forbid their people from questioning any of their teachings and strongly discourage independent thought so I don't know if I'm just wasting my time debating this. Are you even open to the possibility that some of your beliefs may be incorrect? If not, then it completely defeats the purpose of debate in the first place. You're just here to preach then and not discuss anything.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I know the problem of evil has been done to death, but it's one of the strongest arguments against the belief in an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing God. If you don't view God as having all three characteristics then the problem of evil would be nonexistent (see Zoroastrianism). It's also not a problem for me since I don't believe in God. I don't believe is complete free will either, but take a compatibilist position. Regardless, many believers do believe in free will and it's their domain in which I'm debating. This thread is just meant to address the most popular monotheistic solution to the problem of evil. It is argued that God is loving and benevolent, but that evil was a necessary component in order to create free will. Without evil, free will would not be possible.

I would argue that this position is flawed and it can be easily demonstrated to be so using common everyday examples. For instance, we freely make decisions all the time that have nothing to do with evil. We can choose to drink water or tea, we can choose to go to a movie with our friends or stay home and read a book, we can choose to donate blood or work in a soup kitchen for the poor, we can choose to take a walk in a forest or along the beach, etc, etc... and I just framed each of these as if there were only two options.

The point is that there are plenty of possible choices that we can make without the need for evil options to exist at all. Evil is not a necessary component for free will to exist. The question arises then that why wouldn't an all-loving God create the world in such a manner that only good or neutral options were available? If she were all-powerful and all-knowing, then there would be no excuse for allowing the existence of evil in the first place since free will could still be preserved.

And before someone says that it would be an incomplete free will without evil because it would be putting limitations on our options, it would seem that we already always have limitations on our options. I cannot choose to fly. I cannot choose to avoid death forever. I cannot choose to manipulate the laws of physics. I cannot choose a lot of different options due to natural limitations. We don't have totally free will to do anything anyway. Why wouldn't an all-loving God also put a limitation on our ability to make evil choices then? What is the value of evil that such a God would deem worthy of preserving?

You are comparing apples and oranges. I can choose cheesecake over vanilla ice cream but it is not the same as choosing cheesecake over dirt. Also, are you suggesting that the difference between good and evil is a matter of degree?

 

[Straw Dog]

You are comparing apples and oranges. I can choose cheesecake over vanilla ice cream but it is not the same as choosing cheesecake over dirt. Also, are you suggesting that the difference between good and evil is a matter of degree?

I'm attempting to argue from the point of view of popular monotheistic beliefs, such as in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving God as well as the existence of evil as an active force in the world. I realize there's a diversity of views out there so I stick with the mainstream ones, at least in the U.S., simply for the sake of consistency.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

Where in the Bible does God say that he is actually against slavery but only allowing it for a short time? The verses I've read he seems to be endorsing and condoning it. He told the Jewish people to make slaves of other nations that that unjustly invaded.
.

Ex 21:16Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death

clearly God didn't approve of slavery as we think of it,

The slaves, Which no where in the bible does it approve of there owner ship, that the Israelites owned, where under many laws for the their protection and the possibility of their freedom.

The only slaves I actually know of in the Bible are prisoners of war, and in the New Testament slaves already owned by cultures, there is nothing proslavery in the New Testament it doesn't teach slaves to murder and run away, but it teaches them to be obedient to Christ not so much their masters

 

[Pegg]

Oh, I see that you have a literal interpretation of the Bible. Obviously I don't. I'll try to debate from your perspective, though.

Are you saying that mankind was able to overthrow God's kingdom on earth? How is that possible? God is the one with all the power and knowledge, and yet he alienated us from the Garden? We didn't choose to leave. We were forced to leave. Why couldn't he just forgive Adam and Eve way back then when they realized that they had sinned? That way, this whole history of violence and suffering could have been averted.

God did not have a 'kingdom' back in the garden of Eden. He alone was the sovereign ruler of the earth and universe. All the angles of heaven obeyed Jehovah directly, as did Adam and Eve. No kingdom was needed back then.

Unfortunately, he couldnt simply forgive A&E because they had fallen from perfection. Their perfect life was dependent on obedience to God...once they disobeyed, they lost their perfection and thus all their offspring were doomed to a life of imperfection from that moment on. Thats why God couldnt just forgiven them... but he could forgive their children for the future sins they would be bound to commit.

and thats why he chose to establish a future kingdom to bring the children of A&E back to perfection....ie perfect obedience on God which would bring them into a perfect condition.

Where in the Bible does God say that he is actually against slavery but only allowing it for a short time? The verses I've read he seems to be endorsing and condoning it. He told the Jewish people to make slaves of other nations that that unjustly invaded.

by the time the mosaic law was written, slavery was an established part of every day life on earth among all nations. even the Hebrews who were slaves, had slaves. As with many customs of mankind, ie currency, economy, trade, politics, God did not attempt to change the way man governed himself.... but he did change it among the Isrealites. Some of the ways he changed slavery among them was that he made it a rule that every 7th year ALL hebrew slaves were to be let go as freemen. So slavery was not for all time. Slaves were to be treated properly, they were to be provided for physically and materially, they even got inheritance rights. And the reason why slavery was permitted to exist is because people used slavery as a way to buy themselves out of debt, it prevented poverty because a person could sell themselves for a set time to repay a debt they could not repay.

6,000 years? The earth has been here for at least four and a half billion years and life for about a billion years. The modern human species is at least 200,000 years old. I take it that there aren't very many JW scientists? It's not a matter of opinion, the evidence speaks for itself if you would just do a little research.

im not saying the 'earth' is 6,000 years old

mankind as we know it, is only 6,000 odd years old. Written language only goes back 5-6,000 years because that is when Adam was created 4026bce.
Since the 1800's JW's have been teaching that each genesis 'day' was eons of time in length. We have never believed in a 24 hour 'creation day'

Christians have believed that they were in the last days since the time of Jesus. Jesus even told his followers that it would occur within their very lifetimes, and then it didn't. Every subsequent generation of Christians have also thought that the end times were coming soon, but never did. The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the last days begun back in 1914 and then that it would reach fruition and finality on two separate occasions in 1935 and 1975, which were both wrong. As time progresses this belief becomes more and more absurd. So you'll understand why I don't believe you now?

being wrong on the timing is true... but being wrong on the circumstances of the last days is not. The bible is very clear in its description of the last days and bible chronology does put the beginning of the last days in the year of 1914

from that point on the bible says there will be a 'short period of time' before the end comes and we still believe that we are living in that short period of time.

I know the JW forbid their people from questioning any of their teachings and strongly discourage independent thought so I don't know if I'm just wasting my time debating this. Are you even open to the possibility that some of your beliefs may be incorrect? If not, then it completely defeats the purpose of debate in the first place. You're just here to preach then and not discuss anything.

i have never been forbidden to ask questions. Actually, any JW or person from the public can write in questions to the branch office and they will have their questions published in our magazines with an answer from the governing body... so we are certainly not forbidden to ask questions.

We are open to the possibility that some of our teachings may be incorrect, and as time goes on we may even adjust our teachings as our understanding gets clearer as we have done on many occasions. JW's have never proclaimed to be prophets or to be divinely inspired. We are students first and foremost and if anything needs adjusting in our teachings we'll be the first to do it.

 

[SCHIZO]

I know the problem of evil has been done to death, but it's one of the strongest arguments against the belief in an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing God. If you don't view God as having all three characteristics then the problem of evil would be nonexistent (see Zoroastrianism). It's also not a problem for me since I don't believe in God. I don't believe is complete free will either, but take a compatibilist position. Regardless, many believers do believe in free will and it's their domain in which I'm debating. This thread is just meant to address the most popular monotheistic solution to the problem of evil. It is argued that God is loving and benevolent, but that evil was a necessary component in order to create free will. Without evil, free will would not be possible.

I would argue that this position is flawed and it can be easily demonstrated to be so using common everyday examples. For instance, we freely make decisions all the time that have nothing to do with evil. We can choose to drink water or tea, we can choose to go to a movie with our friends or stay home and read a book, we can choose to donate blood or work in a soup kitchen for the poor, we can choose to take a walk in a forest or along the beach, etc, etc... and I just framed each of these as if there were only two options.

The point is that there are plenty of possible choices that we can make without the need for evil options to exist at all. Evil is not a necessary component for free will to exist. The question arises then that why wouldn't an all-loving God create the world in such a manner that only good or neutral options were available? If she were all-powerful and all-knowing, then there would be no excuse for allowing the existence of evil in the first place since free will could still be preserved.

And before someone says that it would be an incomplete free will without evil because it would be putting limitations on our options, it would seem that we already always have limitations on our options. I cannot choose to fly. I cannot choose to avoid death forever. I cannot choose to manipulate the laws of physics. I cannot choose a lot of different options due to natural limitations. We don't have totally free will to do anything anyway. Why wouldn't an all-loving God also put a limitation on our ability to make evil choices then? What is the value of evil that such a God would deem worthy of preserving?

The presence of both good and evil reflects a holy God, a consuming God. God reflects his nature in his creation. Although he is not evil he is a consuming fire. His creation reflects this order of things through things like good and evil, light and dark, matter and energy. It is a creation bent on consuming itself like a fire consumes a piece of wood for fuel. However, it is a process of balance through ever changing forces. Everything is destroyed through fire but created new through the same process. It is like every passing moment, things change and nothing remains the same. Evil is just a force that acts upon the good, changing it, tempering it into a forged piece of steel. Opposites react to eachother. They grow and they shine or they wither and die.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'm attempting to argue from the point of view of popular monotheistic beliefs, such as in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving God as well as the existence of evil as an active force in the world. I realize there's a diversity of views out there so I stick with the mainstream ones, at least in the U.S., simply for the sake of consistency.

You're still comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Straw Dog]

You're still comparing apples to oranges.

Alright. I'll stop then. I'm tired with this topic anyway.

 

[NeedingGnosisNow]

The only cure for evil is universal love. If everyone cared for everyone then we could end it all.

 

[yourgraceisenough]

I know the problem of evil has been done to death, but it's one of the strongest arguments against the belief in an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing God. If you don't view God as having all three characteristics then the problem of evil would be nonexistent (see Zoroastrianism). It's also not a problem for me since I don't believe in God. I don't believe is complete free will either, but take a compatibilist position. Regardless, many believers do believe in free will and it's their domain in which I'm debating. This thread is just meant to address the most popular monotheistic solution to the problem of evil. It is argued that God is loving and benevolent, but that evil was a necessary component in order to create free will. Without evil, free will would not be possible.

I would argue that this position is flawed and it can be easily demonstrated to be so using common everyday examples. For instance, we freely make decisions all the time that have nothing to do with evil. We can choose to drink water or tea, we can choose to go to a movie with our friends or stay home and read a book, we can choose to donate blood or work in a soup kitchen for the poor, we can choose to take a walk in a forest or along the beach, etc, etc... and I just framed each of these as if there were only two options.

The point is that there are plenty of possible choices that we can make without the need for evil options to exist at all. Evil is not a necessary component for free will to exist. The question arises then that why wouldn't an all-loving God create the world in such a manner that only good or neutral options were available? If she were all-powerful and all-knowing, then there would be no excuse for allowing the existence of evil in the first place since free will could still be preserved.

And before someone says that it would be an incomplete free will without evil because it would be putting limitations on our options, it would seem that we already always have limitations on our options. I cannot choose to fly. I cannot choose to avoid death forever. I cannot choose to manipulate the laws of physics. I cannot choose a lot of different options due to natural limitations. We don't have totally free will to do anything anyway. Why wouldn't an all-loving God also put a limitation on our ability to make evil choices then? What is the value of evil that such a God would deem worthy of preserving?

I haven't read any replies so I apologise if this reply is a repeat of an earlier reply..

I don't think evil has to exist for good to exist...

I don't think freewill has to lead to evil...

good and evil needs to be defined and a standard needs to be set to measure them..

If you believe in God some standards are set, if you don't those standards are relative...