God and Evil, working towards a solution

[Koldo]

Yes, there would be a problem. If we can't feel pain, it either means we most likely will die as we have no warning system in place to prevent us from possibly harming ourselves, or we simply can't be harmed. If we can't be harmed, that will lead to a massive amount of problems unless we are limited in some other way. What if I was psychotic and wanted to destroy everything around me. No one could stop me because I can't be harmed. Now, expand this to say 50 people who just want to cause havoc. And with superhuman ability, there will be people who take advantage of that, unless they are simply unable to cause any other sort of harm, which would mean stripping away free will.

I am literally talking about everyone being invulnerable. Why would that strip away free will ? Why do you consider that it is necessary to be able to harm others to have free will ?

Doesn't this entail that tetraplegic people don't have free will, and if so how would you explain that being compatible with a God that gives the utmost importance to free will ?

Could you feel anything though? There would be no reason to feel trust as no one could lie, as lying causes suffering. You may be able to feel other things, as long as they didn't cause harm or suffering to another person. If humans can't suffer, that means we can't go hungry, so there would be no reason to be ranchers or farmers because we would be immune from having to eat. No one would suffer the stress of not having money, but money promotes progress. I'm not going to go mining in some cave to help someone else out as mining sucks. There's no motivation to do that. So where would progress go? And then we'd have to live forever, so slowly nothing would be all that surprising, and life would become tedious.

Do you really mean that the existence of farmers, miners and money justify the existence of suffering ?

We would be able to spend our time doing whatever made us happy, without needing do to anything if we didn't feel like it. Progress would still exist.

Really, to strip life out of all unnecessary suffering strips life of much motivation as well. It strips the need to be creative, or even the possibility to be creative. If there is no motivation to gather raw materials, then how would we expect to create something like the means to produce electricity?
We are all interconnected. My actions effect others, just as your actions do. If I just go about my life, people are going to be effected by my actions, and that can cause harm. Maybe I get distracted while driving and I hit another car. The effects ripple quite far. What if I'm distracted because I'm texting and driving, as is the case with many accidents? That's part of free will though. I can do irresponsible things, even if they effect others. To prevent this, free will has to be stripped away. If we go back to my first response here, I have the free will to cause chaos just because I want to. People do it all the time but it has the possibility of causing massive harm. So for no unnecessary harm, you have to strip away that possibility.

What's the point of having eletricity?
To have a better quality of life. It is contradictory to say that the existence of something that increases our quality of life justifies the non-existence of something that would increase our quality of life so much more. That's, of couse, assuming that eletricity would not exist which is not a given.

But you have to go further. So lets hypothetically say you decide to insult me just because, and it makes me upset (which it probably wouldn't, but let's assume it does). I work with my wife and there is a very real possibility that me being in a bad mood will make me become short with her, which will make her become short with our kids. So that's a good amount of suffering because of your choice to be insulting. Well we can't have that so your ability to insult others has to be stripped away.

Now push this one step further. Let's say we are having a political discussion, and you start ticking me off because I think your views are idiotic ( which is a common occurrence in political discussions. People tend to get upset). I'm angry to I take it out on my wife, who takes it out when her mom calls and she takes it out on her family. More suffering, so we have to strip away the ability to disagree because disagreements often lead to anger and suffering. That or we are stripped of the ability to care.

We could be stripped away from the ability to suffer from an insult. If someone has never ever felt suffering for being insulted would that mean this person lacks free will ?

You didn't address my question though. Let me clarify. How would elimating free will entail eliminating all unnecessary suffering ? Such as suffering caused by natural disasters.

 

[amatuerscholar]

Question is, WHY do they qualify "omniscience'? The Bible certainly doesn't suggest that omniscience should be limited.

In any case, you should be able to find dictionary entries that say "omniscient doesn't necessarily mean that God knows everything that will happen, but instead, God knows all of the possibilities. He knows what can happen, but not what will happen." Two or three examples will suffice.

Besides Job, your quotes are from the New Testament. Isn't it possible for the passages in the Bible to contradict other passages? Yes, and I think we'd both agree with that. And we can look at a number of verses that suggest God doesn't know everything. In Genesis 3:8-13, God has to look for Adam and Eve. In Genesis 11, God has to come down to see what humans are up to. Genesis 18:20-21 is probably the best where it specifically says God has to go to Sodom and Gomorrah to see if the outcry really is as bad as what has reached him. He says he doesn't know.

Even in Job, the one OT verse you quoted, it also have God asking Satan where was he. So it's a bit more complicated than just finding a few passages that agree with your view. Seldom does the Bible have one clear voice.

As for the dictionary, I don't see why some see it as the end all be all source. The dictionary is great for general terminology, but it hardly is the go to source for theological discourse. I gave you a source that looks at the idea of omniscience. When I get home, I can quote from a couple of Biblical dictionaries if that helps, even though they also don't go into depth as they are dictionaries. And I'm not sure how that will change things if reject what theologians say, such as the one I cited.

I have no idea, although, I'm sure if you check your Bible or a source that explains its translation into English, they should be mentioned.

They aren't. Because there was never some official gathering of the the books.

It means quite a bit today because the meaning of its English words, translated from whatever source, are important. If an English language Bible uses the word "rubbish" for "σκύβαλον" (skybalon), instead of, say "dirt," it must be because the choice of "rubbish" was felt to best expresses the intent of the original writer. So, if scholars use "evil," as in Isaiah 45:7,it must be because this is what they felt the original author of the verse meant.

Do you know what one of the most common translation notes for the Old Testament is? We don't fully know what this means. Or this, today's translations of the Bible generally use the Dead Sea Scrolls as a source. Why? Because they are some of the most accurate texts we have, but by using them, it meant a lot had to be changed in the translations. We are constantly learning more about ancient Hebrew and Greek, so translations get better and better.

But what someone translates a word in the Bible today means nothing about who actually put the canons together. The two are unrelated. It doesn't matter who put the canon together, that doesn't effect translation at all. If Moses himself put together the canon it doesn't change if evil should be used in Isaiah 45:7. It literally effects it in no way. It's two very different ideas.

Also, scholars often admit they have no idea what the original is. Biblical criticism goes into this. We get back to what is a good representation of the original, but with the acknowledgement that our idea may change as we find new manuscripts, and as we get new revelations as to the meaning of Greek and Hebrew words. Koine Greek may be a dead language, but our understanding of it changes quite a bit.

And good is the absence of evil, in a general sense. Now what?

You have a nasty habit of taking me out of context. Now what is addressed in the following sentences. You obviously read them as you quote them.

Why? Here's some order

​

Is it good?

We're talking about order in different manners. You're talking about order as in lining up people in an orderly fashion. Order, from a Biblical perspective, which I clearly was talking about. This goes the same way for disorder, which again was talking about it in a Biblical perspective, as that was the context of what we were talking about.

Disorder is chaos. It is opposed to good. So in 1 Corinthians, we see Paul saying God is not of disorder, but of peace. Disorder standing in contrast to peace. In Genesis 1, we have what is deemed as chaos or disorder by most Biblical scholars. God takes this and brings it into order through creation.

Where does it say this?

Genesis 1.

You said:

"Two points here. If we look at the creation story, there is something at the beginning. Looking at Genesis 1, we are told that When God began to create heaven and earth, and the earth was then welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God's breath hovering over the water, God said Let there be light. Often it is pictured that this waste and darkness is chaos. If we look at Isaiah again, we see how connection between darkness and evil is formed. But it is out of this chaos, out of this darkness, that all is created."
​

Where does the Bible say:

"the earth was then welter and waste"?
"God's breath hovering over the water,"?
​

Where does Isaiah say

how a connection is formed between darkness and evil?
"out of this chaos, out of this darkness, that all is created."

​

Chapters and verses please.

.

​

The first is Genesis 1:1. I even stated that, but saying, Looking at Genesis 1, we are told that When God began to create heaven and earth. I literally quoted the first line Genesis. I'm using a Robert Alter translation, but the Jewish Study Bible uses a similar reading as well.

As for Isaiah, I imply that we are looking at the verse you quoted. So Isaiah 45:7. Isaiah goes about it in an opposite way, by saying that God creates light, and that creates darkness. But the general interpretation is that the darkness is there, but it is only darkness when compared to light. God creates light, and we realize there is darkness.

 

[amatuerscholar]

I am literally talking about everyone being invulnerable. Why would that strip away free will ? Why do you consider that it is necessary to be able to harm others to have free will ?

Doesn't this entail that tetraplegic people don't have free will, and if so how would you explain that being compatible with a God that gives the utmost importance to free will ?

If we are stripped away of choices at a divine level, that is stripping away free will. Free will, by definition, means we have the choice to do evil. If we are stripped of that, it's not free will. And no, a tetraplegic isn't stripped of having free will. They can still harm others. They still have choice. They may have to go about it in a different way, but that doesn't mean they can't do it.

Do you really mean that the existence of farmers, miners and money justify the existence of suffering ?

We would be able to spend our time doing whatever made us happy, without needing do to anything if we didn't feel like it. Progress would still exist.

I'm not justifying suffering. I'm saying that if you can't do any harm, and no harm can be done to you, if there is no suffering, that there is no reason to have things like farmers, miners or money as they simply aren't needed.

We could spend our time doing whatever made us happy, as long as their was no possibility of causing harm to others. Progress may exist on some level, but not really. Civilization sprouted up because people needed ways to feed larger groups. So there goes that progress. Much of progress if forced because of suffering, and are ways to alleviate suffering. You take away suffering, and that eliminates a lot of the reason for progress.

What would motivate such large groups to come together to create a civilization that would then have the power to leverage that human power to create increasingly sophisticated things?

What's the point of having eletricity?
To have a better quality of life. It is contradictory to say that the existence of something that increases our quality of life justifies the non-existence of something that would increase our quality of life so much more. That's, of couse, assuming that eletricity would not exist which is not a given.

But it wouldn't give us a better quality of life. Nothing bad could happen anyway. I wouldn't need electricity to warm up, to cook, to build homes, or really anything. Why even create it? We created it because it relieved suffering. If we don't suffer, there is no reason to create it.

We could be stripped away from the ability to suffer from an insult. If someone has never ever felt suffering for being insulted would that mean this person lacks free will ?

You didn't address my question though. Let me clarify. How would elimating free will entail eliminating all unnecessary suffering ? Such as suffering caused by natural disasters.

I didn't say eliminating free will would entail eliminating all unnecessary suffering. However, if we eliminate unnecessary suffering, you have to start stripping away free will. Sure, we can eliminate the ability to suffer from an insult, but that also means we eliminate the ability to insult others. It may not be good to insult others, but that is part of our free will. We are free to insult others.

The solution you're presenting means that free will really doesn't exist. It takes away choice in so many things. We literally would be programmed to only do perfectly good, because anything less would have the possibility of causing suffering.

 

[osgart]

Does this all imply that the conditions of Earth are ideal for God's purposes for humans?

Or are you implying that Earth's present day conditions are the result of anti forces?

If God is omnipotent, and omniscient then why the need to play out all paths of good and evil on this current Earth of ours?

If God exists, then surely this life is the absence of God's presence?

Are we to believe that there is such a thing as Divine protection for the believer?

So given natural disasters, wars, and crime those would all be events of necessity and lessons to the wise. Evil would be created for the evil to be ensnared by it, why the saved are free from the snares of evil doings.

That's a lot to swallow. I don't buy into it.

Evil can and will happen to anybody regardless of their position with relation to a God. Every person must take their entire own precautions no matter who they are.

I don't foresee any value in having to endure evil.

It's best to know of it elsewise then to simply watch it play out.

 

[Bird123]

God and Evil, working towards a solution

As part of a class I'm taking, I'm working towards an argument to show that it is rational to believe in God. But before I get to that point, I'm looking at what is probably the biggest stumbling block, which is the question of theodicy; why does evil exist if God is all loving and all powerful.

I'm linking to a podcast episode (and article) that goes more in depth about this all, but to sum it up, there are two main reasons why suffering exists with a God who is all loving.

First, God is limited. God limits Godself in order for humans to be humans, and to have some sort of power. It also allows God to be in a relationship with humans.

Second, humans are also limited. We aren't perfect, and we make mistakes. We also have free will, which allows us to make horrible decisions that end up having long lasting impacts.

The link goes much deeper into this, but the suggestion that I'm getting at is that God limits Himself, so we can be what we are created to be. We have power ourselves, and because of that, God expects us to step up and and fight against oppression, and towards justice. In other words, God works through us.

Education.Free will is very important to learning and acquiring wisdom. If I restrict your free choice, you will just make that choice as soon as you are free to do so just to discover what that choice is.

Education. Since you are making free unrestricted choices, it's important for you to discover what those choices really mean. The time-based causal nature of this universe is perfect for that.

God returns our choices back to us in order that we understand what those choices really mean. This is not a punishment of any kind. This is education at it's best.

In time, we learn and grow. When one understands all sides, intelligence will choose the Best choices. There has never ever been a need to define exactly what is good and what is evil simply because in the end everyone will pick the best choices. So many of those bad choices will no longer be viable to us simply because we have learned those choices are not intelligent to make.

God also uses this system to teach everyone to Love Unconditionally, after all that is what everyone wants returning.

God's system is running universally through our many many physical lifetimes. This happens regardless of any beliefs one acquires along the way. This system guides us all toward genius and perfection. We will discover for ourselves what it really takes to create a heavenly state. The remarkable thing is that it's all being done through our own free choices.

Religion so often defines good and evil for people. Religion creates a we against they that often leads to hate. Since we are living in a multilevel classroom, one will see others learning lessons we have already learned. Is this really an excuse to hate or condemn others as Evil??

Very few people really understand God. They ask: What does God want from us? Remember, God is Unconditional Love. Unconditional Love always does what is Best for the other. This world and all we experience is not for God. God made all this for us. Life is the education of God's children. Could one really ever Discover it all and acquire Great Wisdom without making bad choices? It's not going to happen.

Don't you see? Much more knowledge exists beyond the surface. Making judgement calls without all the information often leads one away from the Truth.

That's what I see. It's very clear!! There is Genius all around us. All the secrets of the universe stare us in the face. God hides nothing. Perhaps, it's a test of intelligence.

 

[iam1me]

Here's the problem. You came into this discussion and then decided that your definition must be abided by. That's not how a conversation works. You can't just say oh, this is all about moral good, when I've shown that wasn't what was solely being talked about. Whatever your connotation may have been is irrelevant then as to get to your connotation, we must ignore everything else up to that point.

I and anyone else are free to clarify what connotation they intended when using a given term. You are free to clarify what connotation you meant by evil in the OP - and I would encourage you to do so since you are using a secondary connotation of the term which isn't clarified in the OP. You being upset that I would clarify the meaning of the terms that I used in my own post is ridiculous.

Furthermore, sin is not the ultimate root of suffering. Tell that to Job.

Scripturally speaking, it is. The story of Job doesn't counter this basic truth. When sin entered the world, so did suffering and death. The story of Job counters the idea that suffering is tit-for-tat, like karma - which isn't what I've asserted at all. Rather, sin has fundamentally corrupted the world - it is simply the state of affairs to which we are brought into. It wasn't our own sin that did it - but we are suffering for the sin of Adam (Romans 5).

More so, morality and sin are not the same thing. There are things that are sinful that aren't morally wrong. You're conflating to different ideas.

How do you get such basic stuff wrong? Yes that which is sinful is that which is morally wrong.

As for what evil is, I've explained this elsewhere, that it is the absence of good, and as I've been clear, good isn't just in reference to morality. One can also call evil chaos, or disorder, as is often done in the Bible.

There are those who believe evil is simply the absence of good - but it's not scriptural. I certainly don't buy into that philosophy. Chaos isn't evil in and of itself - it's not even a form of suffering. If that chaos produces suffering - then you might call it evil.

The Law teaches a lot more than just morality. Yes, it lays down morality, but it lays down other things as well. More so, the Law is for Jews, not anyone else. More so, the idea that the sum of the law is love creates problems for the Law, as Jewish scholars have seen for centuries.

As for what is God's will, how can we even say what God's will is? We can't.

Matthew 5:17-20 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.​

 

[Koldo]

If we are stripped away of choices at a divine level, that is stripping away free will. Free will, by definition, means we have the choice to do evil. If we are stripped of that, it's not free will. And no, a tetraplegic isn't stripped of having free will. They can still harm others. They still have choice. They may have to go about it in a different way, but that doesn't mean they can't do it.

It stands to reason though that if a tetraplegic person has free will then being able to harm others with your arms and legs is unnecessary to have free will. So how do you explain people being able to harm others that way if that is not a requirement for free will ?

I'm not justifying suffering. I'm saying that if you can't do any harm, and no harm can be done to you, if there is no suffering, that there is no reason to have things like farmers, miners or money as they simply aren't needed.

We could spend our time doing whatever made us happy, as long as their was no possibility of causing harm to others. Progress may exist on some level, but not really. Civilization sprouted up because people needed ways to feed larger groups. So there goes that progress. Much of progress if forced because of suffering, and are ways to alleviate suffering. You take away suffering, and that eliminates a lot of the reason for progress.

What would motivate such large groups to come together to create a civilization that would then have the power to leverage that human power to create increasingly sophisticated things?

But it wouldn't give us a better quality of life. Nothing bad could happen anyway. I wouldn't need electricity to warm up, to cook, to build homes, or really anything. Why even create it? We created it because it relieved suffering. If we don't suffer, there is no reason to create it.

I fail to see how less progress would be a problem since progress wouldn't be as much of a necessity. Why are you giving it so much value ?

I didn't say eliminating free will would entail eliminating all unnecessary suffering. However, if we eliminate unnecessary suffering, you have to start stripping away free will. Sure, we can eliminate the ability to suffer from an insult, but that also means we eliminate the ability to insult others. It may not be good to insult others, but that is part of our free will. We are free to insult others.

The solution you're presenting means that free will really doesn't exist. It takes away choice in so many things. We literally would be programmed to only do perfectly good, because anything less would have the possibility of causing suffering.

I still would like you to explain why there is a need for natural disasters, for instance. How do you explain them ?

 

[amatuerscholar]

Does this all imply that the conditions of Earth are ideal for God's purposes for humans?
.

I don't think any of that would imply that the conditions of Earth are ideal for God's purpose. But I don't think they have to be ideal either. I would say that the answer to most of the questions you pose is a self-limited God. A God who sparked the universe, who emptied Himself into the universe, and in order to allow it to take it's course, limited His own power. This would lead to an idea of panentheism, God is both in this world, but more than this world.

Education.Free will is very important to learning and acquiring wisdom. If I restrict your free choice, you will just make that choice as soon as you are free to do so just to discover what that choice is.
.

Intelligence doesn't lead to the best choices. Germany was one of the most highly educated countries at the onset of WWII, and they made a terrible choice. Education didn't help.

I and anyone else are free to clarify what connotation they intended when using a given term. You are free to clarify what connotation you meant by evil in the OP - and I would encourage you to do so since you are using a secondary connotation of the term which isn't clarified in the OP. You being upset that I would clarify the meaning of the terms that I used in my own post is ridiculous.

Not really. If we are talking about one thing, for you to then say no, this is what it means isn't being part of the conversation and thus since your clarification is outside of the conversation, it really becomes moot. I'm also not upset, I'm just saying that you're not adding to a conversation by coming in midpoint and then saying this is what the words mean and we have to go this way. That isn't an argument.

Scripturally speaking, it is. The story of Job doesn't counter this basic truth. When sin entered the world, so did suffering and death. The story of Job counters the idea that suffering is tit-for-tat, like karma - which isn't what I've asserted at all. Rather, sin has fundamentally corrupted the world - it is simply the state of affairs to which we are brought into. It wasn't our own sin that did it - but we are suffering for the sin of Adam (Romans 5).

No, it really isn't. The story of Job is about a person who is sin free, and yet is suffering. How do you explain that? If we go with your idea that the world just has sin in it, then really it becomes meaningless and it ignores what scripture is saying in Job.

I think you misunderstand what karma is. It's not tit-for-tat. It's more like a cosmic piggybank. Just because you do something bad doesn't mean you will have bad done onto you. If all you do is bad, then in the next life you're going to suffer.

How do you get such basic stuff wrong? Yes that which is sinful is that which is morally wrong.

The problem is that you don't really understand this basic stuff from a theological perspective, but from a surface level. You mentioned that the Law teaches us what is moral. But is eating pig somehow immoral? Most of the food law don't deal with morality, but with cleanliness. So that doesn't work. We can look at homosexuality. Some deem homosexuality immoral and sinful, yet many also say it isn't sinful, so then it's moral? Who decides what is moral and what is sinful?

It gets much more complicated then what you imply here.

There are those who believe evil is simply the absence of good - but it's not scriptural. I certainly don't buy into that philosophy. Chaos isn't evil in and of itself - it's not even a form of suffering. If that chaos produces suffering - then you might call it evil.

It is scriptural. It comes back to Genesis and the creation story. You don't have to buy into it, but it can be supported scripturally.

Matthew 5:17-20 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.​

Quoting a verse out of context isn't a rebuttal. Interesting enough, all Jews fulfill the Laws every day. That's part of being a Jew (at least religiously). But he's really talking to Jews, not Gentiles. More so, I highly doubt you take this verse all that seriously unless you also follow all the Jewish Laws and in a very strict manner. Because that is what Jesus is saying. Follow the Law as strictly as possible.

It stands to reason though that if a tetraplegic person has free will then being able to harm others with your arms and legs is unnecessary to have free will. So how do you explain people being able to harm others that way if that is not a requirement for free will ?

This question really doesn't make sense. It's really moving a point to an absurd level. Having free will has nothing to do with your own physical features and how you're able to use them.

I fail to see how less progress would be a problem since progress wouldn't be as much of a necessity. Why are you giving it so much value ?

You seem to be backing away from the idea that progress would still just continue on. But if we follow your idea to the end, we've lost what humanity is.

I still would like you to explain why there is a need for natural disasters, for instance. How do you explain them ?

I never got that far, except to say that earth is a dynamic place. Natural disasters do cause havoc, but they can also create beauty. They can help restore the planet. A forest fire is a natural disaster, but it also cleans the area allowing for new growth, and for a continuance.

 

[Koldo]

This question really doesn't make sense. It's really moving a point to an absurd level. Having free will has nothing to do with your own physical features and how you're able to use them.

If having free will has nothing to do with your own physical features and how you're able to use them, then there is no explanation on why people must be able to harm one another with their arms and legs. Therefore, God is not omnibenevolent, omnipotent or omniscient.

If there is even one case where suffering can not be justified then the problem of evil persists.

You seem to be backing away from the idea that progress would still just continue on. But if we follow your idea to the end, we've lost what humanity is.

What I am saying is more like: Even if I were to accept that ALL progress would not exist, I still fail to see the problem.

Humans are animals that experience suffering. Certainly if we were not to experience it, we would lose part of what it means to be human. The same goes for progress. But you have not shown what would be the problem if that happened.

In essence you are saying that progress justifies suffering but not explaining why. What argument do you have for that ?

I never got that far, except to say that earth is a dynamic place. Natural disasters do cause havoc, but they can also create beauty. They can help restore the planet. A forest fire is a natural disaster, but it also cleans the area allowing for new growth, and for a continuance.

But is it necessary to have natural disasters to create beauty ? Certainly not. So it can not be justified. You can not merely point there is a good side to everything, you need an argument to explain why and how this good side makes up for the bad part.

 

[amatuerscholar]

If having free will has nothing to do with your own physical features and how you're able to use them, then there is no explanation on why people must be able to harm one another with their arms and legs. Therefore, God is not omnibenevolent, omnipotent or omniscient.

If there is even one case where suffering can not be justified then the problem of evil persists.

I never said anything about people must being able to harm one another with their legs and arms. You went off on that tangent. I said people have to have the choice to harm others. Your second sentenced doesn't follow the first.

As for suffering not being justified, the problem of evil exists. That's what I've been arguing against.

What I am saying is more like: Even if I were to accept that ALL progress would not exist, I still fail to see the problem.

Humans are animals that experience suffering. Certainly if we were not to experience it, we would lose part of what it means to be human. The same goes for progress. But you have not shown what would be the problem if that happened.

In essence you are saying that progress justifies suffering but not explaining why. What argument do you have for that ?

I'm not saying that at all. This all started going down because of an explanation of why suffering can be a good thing. I used it as part of our bodies warning systems. You argued that we didn't need that if we just couldn't feel pain, and there was no unnecessary suffering, which would lead us down a rabbit hole really.

I'm saying if you eliminate suffering, you eliminate what it means to be human. Because if we can't suffer, that means we can't make others suffer. Really, we'd have to be perfectly good because we would have no choice but to be perfectly good.

But is it necessary to have natural disasters to create beauty ? Certainly not. So it can not be justified. You can not merely point there is a good side to everything, you need an argument to explain why and how this good side makes up for the bad part.

It's not necessary, but just because it isn't necessary doesn't mean that it can't be justified. You don't need necessity for something to be justified.

I don't have to explain why the good makes up for the bad. I just need to explain why the bad happens. A dynamic world explains why bad happens. A God that is self-limiting explains why bad happens. A God that works within the confines of the universe, instead of trying to perfect everything, explains why bad things happen.

 

[Koldo]

I never said anything about people must being able to harm one another with their legs and arms. You went off on that tangent. I said people have to have the choice to harm others. Your second sentenced doesn't follow the first.

As for suffering not being justified, the problem of evil exists. That's what I've been arguing against.

You have stated that the reason for (some) suffering is free will. I am pointing out an example as to how people can retain free will and yet be prevented from harming one another with their arms and legs. I would like you to explain why this sort of evil exists since it is not because of free will.

I'm not saying that at all. This all started going down because of an explanation of why suffering can be a good thing. I used it as part of our bodies warning systems. You argued that we didn't need that if we just couldn't feel pain, and there was no unnecessary suffering, which would lead us down a rabbit hole really.

I'm saying if you eliminate suffering, you eliminate what it means to be human. Because if we can't suffer, that means we can't make others suffer. Really, we'd have to be perfectly good because we would have no choice but to be perfectly good.
It's not necessary, but just because it isn't necessary doesn't mean that it can't be justified. You don't need necessity for something to be justified.

But you don't need to be perfectly good to never do evil. You might either be unable to do evil by design or by divine intervention. Turning humans into robots is one solution but not the only one. I still don't understand why progress or being human justifies suffering. What if we were not human ( as we know it ) ? What's so bad about being something else ?

It's not necessary, but just because it isn't necessary doesn't mean that it can't be justified. You don't need necessity for something to be justified.

On this case you do. Let me explain why.
An omnibenevolent being seeks to maximize everyone's well being as much as it possibly can.
If you add omnipotence and omniscience, this being knows how to and has unlimited power to achieve everyone's maximum well being. This means that if such a being exist it is the case that we live in the best of all possible worlds.

But we clearly live in world where things such as famine, war, diseases and natural disasters exist, and we must reconcile the existence of all of this with that 'being' since in principle they would be incompatible.

One answer to that is free will. Free will is so important that it is better to live in a world with all that suffering to keep free will intact than to live in a world where free will doesn't exist and everything else is perfect. This is an attempt to justify all instances of evil and suffering by saying that if people chose to do evil and it happened, it had to have happened out of necessity, because otherwise free will would have been disrupted and we wouldn't be living in the best possible of all worlds.

If there isn't a justification for every single instance of evil and suffering, then that 'being' either didn't have the power to prevent it, or didn't know how to prevent it, or didn't care/want to prevent it.

I am debating this point with you above, however free will still doesn't explain why natural disasters happen, since in principle no one is making choices to do evil to make them happen.

I don't have to explain why the good makes up for the bad. I just need to explain why the bad happens. A dynamic world explains why bad happens. A God that is self-limiting explains why bad happens. A God that works within the confines of the universe, instead of trying to perfect everything, explains why bad things happen.

Why would God limit himself if his utmost will is everyone's well being ? Sounds contradictory.

 

[Bird123]

I don't think any of that would imply that the conditions of Earth are ideal for God's purpose. But I don't think they have to be ideal either. I would say that the answer to most of the questions you pose is a self-limited God. A God who sparked the universe, who emptied Himself into the universe, and in order to allow it to take it's course, limited His own power. This would lead to an idea of panentheism, God is both in this world, but more than this world.





Intelligence doesn't lead to the best choices. Germany was one of the most highly educated countries at the onset of WWII, and they made a terrible choice. Education didn't help.


Not really. If we are talking about one thing, for you to then say no, this is what it means isn't being part of the conversation and thus since your clarification is outside of the conversation, it really becomes moot. I'm also not upset, I'm just saying that you're not adding to a conversation by coming in midpoint and then saying this is what the words mean and we have to go this way. That isn't an argument.
No, it really isn't. The story of Job is about a person who is sin free, and yet is suffering. How do you explain that? If we go with your idea that the world just has sin in it, then really it becomes meaningless and it ignores what scripture is saying in Job.

I think you misunderstand what karma is. It's not tit-for-tat. It's more like a cosmic piggybank. Just because you do something bad doesn't mean you will have bad done onto you. If all you do is bad, then in the next life you're going to suffer.
The problem is that you don't really understand this basic stuff from a theological perspective, but from a surface level. You mentioned that the Law teaches us what is moral. But is eating pig somehow immoral? Most of the food law don't deal with morality, but with cleanliness. So that doesn't work. We can look at homosexuality. Some deem homosexuality immoral and sinful, yet many also say it isn't sinful, so then it's moral? Who decides what is moral and what is sinful?

It gets much more complicated then what you imply here.
It is scriptural. It comes back to Genesis and the creation story. You don't have to buy into it, but it can be supported scripturally.
Quoting a verse out of context isn't a rebuttal. Interesting enough, all Jews fulfill the Laws every day. That's part of being a Jew (at least religiously). But he's really talking to Jews, not Gentiles. More so, I highly doubt you take this verse all that seriously unless you also follow all the Jewish Laws and in a very strict manner. Because that is what Jesus is saying. Follow the Law as strictly as possible.

This question really doesn't make sense. It's really moving a point to an absurd level. Having free will has nothing to do with your own physical features and how you're able to use them.
You seem to be backing away from the idea that progress would still just continue on. But if we follow your idea to the end, we've lost what humanity is.
I never got that far, except to say that earth is a dynamic place. Natural disasters do cause havoc, but they can also create beauty. They can help restore the planet. A forest fire is a natural disaster, but it also cleans the area allowing for new growth, and for a continuance.

Germany might have been highly intelligent in some fields, however how intelligent did their choices turn out to be? Clearly, many intelligent views were missing from their knowledge base.

 

[wellwisher]

God and Evil, working towards a solution

As part of a class I'm taking, I'm working towards an argument to show that it is rational to believe in God. But before I get to that point, I'm looking at what is probably the biggest stumbling block, which is the question of theodicy; why does evil exist if God is all loving and all powerful.

I'm linking to a podcast episode (and article) that goes more in depth about this all, but to sum it up, there are two main reasons why suffering exists with a God who is all loving.

First, God is limited. God limits Godself in order for humans to be humans, and to have some sort of power. It also allows God to be in a relationship with humans.

Second, humans are also limited. We aren't perfect, and we make mistakes. We also have free will, which allows us to make horrible decisions that end up having long lasting impacts.

The link goes much deeper into this, but the suggestion that I'm getting at is that God limits Himself, so we can be what we are created to be. We have power ourselves, and because of that, God expects us to step up and and fight against oppression, and towards justice. In other words, God works through us.

The problem is not God, but the free will of humans and the human choice to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; law. This creates a problem in the human psyche that induces and perpetuates evil.

When the human brain creates memory, the limbic system in the core region of the brain, adds emotional tags to memory, as memory is written to the cerebral matter. Within the limbic system, the amygdala is the emotion center of the brain, while the hippocampus plays an essential role in the formation of new memories about past experiences. This brain core-cerebral matter writing process is why our strongest memories have the strongest emotional tags; trauma, graduation, first date, marriage, first child, etc. These memories are strong and can be easily recreated over a lifetime.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil symbolizes law. Law breaks human behavior, into good and evil. It also associates the emotions of reward/rest and punishment/fear with each choice. Law is a unique form of memory in that it contains conflicting emotions within a single thing. When law is written to memory it has two conflicting emotional tags, one for the good side of law and one for the evil side of the same law.

The problem law creates in the human brain and psyche, is by creating conflicting emotional tagging, it leaves one in a state of suspension; desire and fear. If you desire something you will approach, but if you fear something you retreat. Wit law you can become stuck, in tension. The symbolism of Jesus on the cross in suspension between two thieves describes this unconscious dynamics. Nether choice or thief feels optimized. The brain and unconscious mind deal with this state of unnatural suspense by separating law into two parts. One side of the law because conscious, and the other side of the law becomes more unconscious. We learn the two sides of law, but see ourselves as good and repress the evil. The analogy is a coin, which is one thing, with two sides, but we can only see one side at a time.

The problem this creates, is to be conscious of good, means the evil still exists within our memory at an unconscious level; two sided coin. People can think they are doing good, while also unconsciously doing evil, since both sides of the coin are active; ends justifies the means. The unconscious mind is active, while we consciously choose. The fact that most humans think reality is based on good and evil is an artifact of this unnatural writing of memory induced by law.

Animals do not have these same conflicting and polarized feelings, since they are not under law of good and evil. They know what is healthy and what is to be avoided, with each choice having a single memory tagging. The emotional tagging is situational, and not generalized or polarized.

Jesus did away with law through the forgiveness of sins. Sin is not imputed when there is no law. Sin only appears if the law says something is a sin. If you forgive sins, this adds up to also doing away with law. Doing away with law and therefore the sin it defines, ends the writing polarization within the human brain, and the unconscious compulsion induced by repression of the dark side of law; coin with two sides.

For example, marijuana used to be a human defined sin throughout the USA. If you did this, you broke the law and were a social sinner, by definition. This law and social polarization of good and evil behavior, also allowed the self righteous to persecute these sinners, in the name of the law; good. Persecution is doing evil, but is defined as good in the name of the law. This confusion is due to the polarization induced by law and the impact of impulse from the unconscious mind, since law is one coin with two sides.

Once that law was repealed, in some states, so was the sin, as well as the self righteous unconsciousness that the law allowed and induced. The power of sin is the law. Without law, sin has no power. The internal polarization heals, simply by getting rid of the law. The two sided coin is extracted.

The problem is this internal polarization within humans is thousands of years old. It may well have been engrained in our genes to where it seems natural. If we did away wth all law, over night, although the long term affect would be healing, the short term affect would be the internal potential, that has built for thousands of years, would play out until the polarization is gone; massive social psycho-drama. This is symbolized by Revelations; prophesies. The dark side will become more and more socially conscious. In doing so more and more evil, as define law, will be released, until the conscious depolarization of culture, runs its course. This dramatic prospect causes humans to perpetuate law and evil; delay the healing.

The analogy is like having a neurosis. To heal one has to confront the source of the problem. It may seem easier to project evil. The problem is outside yourself; others did it, than to know the problem is inside of you. Many prefer to avoid this. It may seem better to remain unhappy, complaining about God, then follow a solution that was already offered. The needed drama of healing is connected to a major update in the operating system of the human brain. However, there is an unsettling uninstall aspect to the healing, before the installation of the new operating system.

 

[amatuerscholar]

You have stated that the reason for (some) suffering is free will. I am pointing out an example as to how people can retain free will and yet be prevented from harming one another with their arms and legs. I would like you to explain why this sort of evil exists since it is not because of free will.

Your challenge here simply makes no sense as it is fundamentally misunderstanding what free will is. Free will has nothing to do with being prevented from harming one another with arms or legs. It has nothing to do with physical prevention at all. I can throw someone in jail and that isn't preventing them from having free will. Free will has nothing to do with that. Simply, free will is the ability to act without the constraint of fate or some divine hand coming into play. It's the ability to act with one's own discretion. It doesn't mean you can do whatever you want or you won't have limitations.

But you don't need to be perfectly good to never do evil. You might either be unable to do evil by design or by divine intervention. Turning humans into robots is one solution but not the only one. I still don't understand why progress or being human justifies suffering. What if we were not human ( as we know it ) ? What's so bad about being something else ?

Evil is the absence of good. It is opposed to being good. So yes, you have to be perfectly good to never do evil, especially when we factor in the fact that we are all connected.

Also, I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, progress justifies human suffering. I've explained this before. And if we were not human, then this whole line of questioning is moot.

On this case you do. Let me explain why.
An omnibenevolent being seeks to maximize everyone's well being as much as it possibly can.
If you add omnipotence and omniscience, this being knows how to and has unlimited power to achieve everyone's maximum well being. This means that if such a being exist it is the case that we live in the best of all possible worlds.

But we clearly live in world where things such as famine, war, diseases and natural disasters exist, and we must reconcile the existence of all of this with that 'being' since in principle they would be incompatible.

One answer to that is free will. Free will is so important that it is better to live in a world with all that suffering to keep free will intact than to live in a world where free will doesn't exist and everything else is perfect. This is an attempt to justify all instances of evil and suffering by saying that if people chose to do evil and it happened, it had to have happened out of necessity, because otherwise free will would have been disrupted and we wouldn't be living in the best possible of all worlds.

If there isn't a justification for every single instance of evil and suffering, then that 'being' either didn't have the power to prevent it, or didn't know how to prevent it, or didn't care/want to prevent it.

I am debating this point with you above, however free will still doesn't explain why natural disasters happen, since in principle no one is making choices to do evil to make them happen.

First, we can't say what an omnibenevolent being would seek to do. You're making an assumption, but we can't place that assumption on a God like figure because we can't really know the inner workings or thought processes of a being like God. Maximizing everyone's well being may not do the best good. Suffering and struggles aren't necessarily bad things, and allowing that to happen may produce better good.

As for omniscience, your argument only holds if we take a classical view of the idea of omniscience, which is that God knows all that will happen. Most theologians debate that point as it prevents freewill. If you are fated to do certain things, and if God knows all that will happen we are by default fated to do such things, there is no free will. So to get around that idea, theologians posit that instead, God knows all possibilities. God know what can happen, but not necessarily what will happen. More so, the scenario you presented here, an all knowing and all powerful God that maximizes well being and created the best of all possible worlds, means that humans have no free will at all. We have no choices at all. And we really aren't humans. We are programmed beings that must follow a very small path that achieves maximum perfection. It simply isn't what we see.

There is a better solution than just claiming free will though. Because free will alone doesn't really answer anything. Instead, it forces other things, such as a limited God. A God that must step back in order for humans to be humans. For humans to have the ability to make choices free of some fate. This really explains why suffering exists. It's not because God can't or doesn't know how to, or doesn't want to prevent all suffering. It's that God has limited Himself in order for humans to be more than some puppets or pieces in a world where they have no choice or freedom. It's to allow humans to be humans.

Yes. this doesn't explain natural disasters, and if you listened to the podcast or read the article, or read what I've been writing here, I simply haven't covered natural evil because it is something that is totally different from moral evil. But I've already mentioned briefly why natural evil can exist.

Why would God limit himself if his utmost will is everyone's well being ? Sounds contradictory.

Do we know what God's utmost will is? No we don't.

Germany might have been highly intelligent in some fields, however how intelligent did their choices turn out to be? Clearly, many intelligent views were missing from their knowledge base.

The point is that intelligence doesn't prevent evil or suffering. It isn't a solution. Germany was highly intelligent in most fields. Germany was at the forefront of both theology and philosophy at that time. They were a dominating force. And you'd think those two fields would be the knowledge bases that were needed. Yet even with all their knowledge, they still committed massive evil.

The problem is not God, but the free will of humans and the human choice to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; law. This creates a problem in the human psyche that induces and perpetuates evil.

There is a lot going on here. The problem I see is a lot of assumptions, and misunderstandings. So if God created humans, God created us with free will. So it would be a problem with God. He created us to be this way. God also created a dynamic earth that causes natural evil. We can't simply pass the buck. More so, God presented the tree of knowledge, knowing full well the probability that humans would eat from it. So we can't pass the buck here.

I would say something about memory, but I really don't see where the even comes into play here. So no need to go there.

The tree of knowledge doesn't symbolize law. Law isn't a form of memory. There is no evidence for that, and seems to come out of nowhere. More so, law doesn't just break human behavior into good and evil. There are laws that prevent good. Just because a law says you can't do this, doesn't mean that what is being prevented is evil.

So no, law doesn't create some suspension in the brain. And Jesus being suspended on a cross has nothing to do with that. That is a lot of assumptions that isn't backed by neurological evidence, or any psychology.

The problem you say this creates is also fictional as one, law isn't a form of memory, and law doesn't do what you claim it does. We can see this even more clearly in the idea that Jesus supposedly did away with the Law. First, Jesus doesn't do away with the Law. Instead, he says that not a single iota of the Law will change. He tells his followers to keep it very strictly. Second, we are talking solely about the Jewish Law, which is meant only for Jews. This doesn't separate things into good and evil. Sure, it does some of that, but it also was a way to separate the Jews from others. It was a way to keep their identity. To say that eating a pig is evil isn't what the Law is saying. It's saying Jews don't eat pigs because that is part of their covenant with God.

So now you're confusing two types of laws. You're confusing the Jewish Law with law in general. And that doesn't work at all because they are two very separate things. More so, law doesn't equate to sin. Me smoking a joint isn't sinful. It may be illegal, but they are two different things.

The analogy just fails though as it is based on too many misconceptions and assumptions.

 

[Koldo]

Your challenge here simply makes no sense as it is fundamentally misunderstanding what free will is. Free will has nothing to do with being prevented from harming one another with arms or legs. It has nothing to do with physical prevention at all. I can throw someone in jail and that isn't preventing them from having free will. Free will has nothing to do with that. Simply, free will is the ability to act without the constraint of fate or some divine hand coming into play. It's the ability to act with one's own discretion. It doesn't mean you can do whatever you want or you won't have limitations.

I am afraid you are the one not understanding me. I know what you mean by free will already. I am asking you to justify why people need to be able to physically hurt each other with their arms and legs. Can you justify it or not ? If you can not justify it then there is a form of evil in the world that can not be excused by free will.

Evil is the absence of good. It is opposed to being good. So yes, you have to be perfectly good to never do evil, especially when we factor in the fact that we are all connected.

I will dispute this point too. I agree that evil is the opposite of good. But it is possible to be neither, therefore evil is not merely the absence of good. Otherwise, rocks would be evil.

Also, I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, progress justifies human suffering. I've explained this before. And if we were not human, then this whole line of questioning is moot.

Please explain why it would be moot.

First, we can't say what an omnibenevolent being would seek to do. You're making an assumption, but we can't place that assumption on a God like figure because we can't really know the inner workings or thought processes of a being like God. Maximizing everyone's well being may not do the best good. Suffering and struggles aren't necessarily bad things, and allowing that to happen may produce better good.

Yes, we can say what omnibenevolence entails. To do good is to improve the well being. Therefore, omnibenevolence entails doing ( or at least seeking ) always what results in the biggest possible increase in the well being. If maximizing everyone's well being is not the best good, you are bastardizing the word 'good' and rendering it meaningless. Curing cancer is a good action because it improves our well being while torturing others is an evil action because it decrease our well being. It can't get any more simple than that.

As for omniscience, your argument only holds if we take a classical view of the idea of omniscience, which is that God knows all that will happen. Most theologians debate that point as it prevents freewill. If you are fated to do certain things, and if God knows all that will happen we are by default fated to do such things, there is no free will. So to get around that idea, theologians posit that instead, God knows all possibilities. God know what can happen, but not necessarily what will happen. More so, the scenario you presented here, an all knowing and all powerful God that maximizes well being and created the best of all possible worlds, means that humans have no free will at all. We have no choices at all. And we really aren't humans. We are programmed beings that must follow a very small path that achieves maximum perfection. It simply isn't what we see.

Explain how you have reached the conclusion that the scenario I have presented entails no free will. I want to know the premises ( list them ) and how this conclusion follows from them.

There is a better solution than just claiming free will though. Because free will alone doesn't really answer anything. Instead, it forces other things, such as a limited God. A God that must step back in order for humans to be humans. For humans to have the ability to make choices free of some fate. This really explains why suffering exists. It's not because God can't or doesn't know how to, or doesn't want to prevent all suffering. It's that God has limited Himself in order for humans to be more than some puppets or pieces in a world where they have no choice or freedom. It's to allow humans to be humans.

Yes. this doesn't explain natural disasters, and if you listened to the podcast or read the article, or read what I've been writing here, I simply haven't covered natural evil because it is something that is totally different from moral evil. But I've already mentioned briefly why natural evil can exist.

Please quote or link it here.

Do we know what God's utmost will is? No we don't.

If we claim that God is omnibenevolent that is what we are claiming to know.

 

[amatuerscholar]

I am afraid you are the one not understanding me. I know what you mean by free will already. I am asking you to justify why people need to be able to physically hurt each other with their arms and legs. Can you justify it or not ? If you can not justify it then there is a form of evil in the world that can not be excused by free will.

Why would I justify that? I don't know why you're hung up on this idea. I don't understand how not being able to hurt someone with their arms and legs, because they don't have them, has anything to do with free will. Because it literally has nothing with free will.

I will dispute this point too. I agree that evil is the opposite of good. But it is possible to be neither, therefore evil is not merely the absence of good. Otherwise, rocks would be evil.

Why can't rocks be good? More so, we're talking about moral evil here. So it seems off point.

Please explain why it would be moot.

We are talking about humans. If that fundamentally changes, then it's a moot point because it becomes a what if that simply will never exist.

Yes, we can say what omnibenevolence entails. To do good is to improve the well being. Therefore, omnibenevolence entails doing ( or at least seeking ) always what results in the biggest possible increase in the well being. If maximizing everyone's well being is not the best good, you are bastardizing the word 'good' and rendering it meaningless. Curing cancer is a good action because it improves our well being while torturing others is an evil action because it decrease our well being. It can't get any more simple than that.

What we mean by omnibenevolence, and what omnibenevolence would mean to a being that isn't a human are two different things. More so, I don't think the definition includes anything about the biggest possible increase in well being. Also, your last argument is neither here nor there as you switch from the best good, to just something good or something evil. The argument doesn't follow.

Explain how you have reached the conclusion that the scenario I have presented entails no free will. I want to know the premises ( list them ) and how this conclusion follows from them.

I don't think you understand free will. Because if God is creating the best good for everyone, through all the power He has, we are following fate, a divine providence which we have no say in.

Please quote or link it here.

No. I've mentioned it multiple times. It's in the article and podcast. If you've consistently ignored it, that's not on me.

If we claim that God is omnibenevolent that is what we are claiming to know.

No we aren't. We are claiming we know something about God.

 

[Bird123]

Your challenge here simply makes no sense as it is fundamentally misunderstanding what free will is. Free will has nothing to do with being prevented from harming one another with arms or legs. It has nothing to do with physical prevention at all. I can throw someone in jail and that isn't preventing them from having free will. Free will has nothing to do with that. Simply, free will is the ability to act without the constraint of fate or some divine hand coming into play. It's the ability to act with one's own discretion. It doesn't mean you can do whatever you want or you won't have limitations.
Evil is the absence of good. It is opposed to being good. So yes, you have to be perfectly good to never do evil, especially when we factor in the fact that we are all connected.

Also, I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, progress justifies human suffering. I've explained this before. And if we were not human, then this whole line of questioning is moot.
First, we can't say what an omnibenevolent being would seek to do. You're making an assumption, but we can't place that assumption on a God like figure because we can't really know the inner workings or thought processes of a being like God. Maximizing everyone's well being may not do the best good. Suffering and struggles aren't necessarily bad things, and allowing that to happen may produce better good.

As for omniscience, your argument only holds if we take a classical view of the idea of omniscience, which is that God knows all that will happen. Most theologians debate that point as it prevents freewill. If you are fated to do certain things, and if God knows all that will happen we are by default fated to do such things, there is no free will. So to get around that idea, theologians posit that instead, God knows all possibilities. God know what can happen, but not necessarily what will happen. More so, the scenario you presented here, an all knowing and all powerful God that maximizes well being and created the best of all possible worlds, means that humans have no free will at all. We have no choices at all. And we really aren't humans. We are programmed beings that must follow a very small path that achieves maximum perfection. It simply isn't what we see.

There is a better solution than just claiming free will though. Because free will alone doesn't really answer anything. Instead, it forces other things, such as a limited God. A God that must step back in order for humans to be humans. For humans to have the ability to make choices free of some fate. This really explains why suffering exists. It's not because God can't or doesn't know how to, or doesn't want to prevent all suffering. It's that God has limited Himself in order for humans to be more than some puppets or pieces in a world where they have no choice or freedom. It's to allow humans to be humans.

Yes. this doesn't explain natural disasters, and if you listened to the podcast or read the article, or read what I've been writing here, I simply haven't covered natural evil because it is something that is totally different from moral evil. But I've already mentioned briefly why natural evil can exist.


Do we know what God's utmost will is? No we don't.

The point is that intelligence doesn't prevent evil or suffering. It isn't a solution. Germany was highly intelligent in most fields. Germany was at the forefront of both theology and philosophy at that time. They were a dominating force. And you'd think those two fields would be the knowledge bases that were needed. Yet even with all their knowledge, they still committed massive evil.

There is a lot going on here. The problem I see is a lot of assumptions, and misunderstandings. So if God created humans, God created us with free will. So it would be a problem with God. He created us to be this way. God also created a dynamic earth that causes natural evil. We can't simply pass the buck. More so, God presented the tree of knowledge, knowing full well the probability that humans would eat from it. So we can't pass the buck here.

I would say something about memory, but I really don't see where the even comes into play here. So no need to go there.

The tree of knowledge doesn't symbolize law. Law isn't a form of memory. There is no evidence for that, and seems to come out of nowhere. More so, law doesn't just break human behavior into good and evil. There are laws that prevent good. Just because a law says you can't do this, doesn't mean that what is being prevented is evil.

So no, law doesn't create some suspension in the brain. And Jesus being suspended on a cross has nothing to do with that. That is a lot of assumptions that isn't backed by neurological evidence, or any psychology.

The problem you say this creates is also fictional as one, law isn't a form of memory, and law doesn't do what you claim it does. We can see this even more clearly in the idea that Jesus supposedly did away with the Law. First, Jesus doesn't do away with the Law. Instead, he says that not a single iota of the Law will change. He tells his followers to keep it very strictly. Second, we are talking solely about the Jewish Law, which is meant only for Jews. This doesn't separate things into good and evil. Sure, it does some of that, but it also was a way to separate the Jews from others. It was a way to keep their identity. To say that eating a pig is evil isn't what the Law is saying. It's saying Jews don't eat pigs because that is part of their covenant with God.

So now you're confusing two types of laws. You're confusing the Jewish Law with law in general. And that doesn't work at all because they are two very separate things. More so, law doesn't equate to sin. Me smoking a joint isn't sinful. It may be illegal, but they are two different things.

The analogy just fails though as it is based on too many misconceptions and assumptions.

Clearly, you do not Understand. Germany lacked the knowledge that would tell them their choices were bad choices. Sure. Germany could be intelligent in areas you might not have a clue about and yet you had the knowledge they lacked knowing their choices would end up as bad choices. Sad, however it often takes living through one's free choices in order to really Understand.

You might define intelligence as one with a high IQ, however clearly something is missing from that definition. With missing pieces of knowledge, an real intelligent choice could never be made. Germany is a case in point.

 

[Koldo]

Why would I justify that? I don't know why you're hung up on this idea. I don't understand how not being able to hurt someone with their arms and legs, because they don't have them, has anything to do with free will. Because it literally has nothing with free will.

Because every single instance of evil must be justified if we are to hold that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipotent. Even one single case of evil that can not be justified would entail that God is either not omnipotent, omniscient or omnibenevolent.

Since you can not justify this instance with free will, and this is what I have been stating, I want to know what else you propose.

Why can't rocks be good? More so, we're talking about moral evil here. So it seems off point.

It is not off point. If all it takes to be evil is the absence of good then rocks are evil because they are not morally good. This is why I disagree with saying that evil is the absence of good. It is either a blatantly wrong definition or at best a fairly incomplete one.

We are talking about humans. If that fundamentally changes, then it's a moot point because it becomes a what if that simply will never exist.

Why will it never exist ? Are you placing a limitation on omnipotence ?

What we mean by omnibenevolence, and what omnibenevolence would mean to a being that isn't a human are two different things.

Even different humans can use different definitions. But how God sees omninevolent is irrelevant. I am arguing over the claim that humans make.

More so, I don't think the definition includes anything about the biggest possible increase in well being.

Why not ? Can you think of a greater good ?

Also, your last argument is neither here nor there as you switch from the best good, to just something good or something evil. The argument doesn't follow.

Elaborate.

I don't think you understand free will. Because if God is creating the best good for everyone, through all the power He has, we are following fate, a divine providence which we have no say in.

You haven't addressed my request in that quote.

No. I've mentioned it multiple times. It's in the article and podcast. If you've consistently ignored it, that's not on me.

Not to me, I am afraid. But if you can point out where you have done so, I will take that back.

No we aren't. We are claiming we know something about God.

Isn't that what I have just said?

 

[amatuerscholar]

Clearly, you do not Understand. Germany lacked the knowledge that would tell them their choices were bad choices. Sure. Germany could be intelligent in areas you might not have a clue about and yet you had the knowledge they lacked knowing their choices would end up as bad choices. Sad, however it often takes living through one's free choices in order to really Understand.

You might define intelligence as one with a high IQ, however clearly something is missing from that definition. With missing pieces of knowledge, an real intelligent choice could never be made. Germany is a case in point.

That really is just making exceptions based on information that doesn't agree with your argument, which isn't sound logic. They didn't lack the knowledge. Many Germans argued it was wrong, and fought against it. They proceeded anyway.

Because every single instance of evil must be justified if we are to hold that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipotent. Even one single case of evil that can not be justified would entail that God is either not omnipotent, omniscient or omnibenevolent.

Already went over this. No. You're arguing something I'm not even concerned with or brought up. I suggest you go back and reexamine what I'm saying, or just listen to the podcast, because at this point, we aren't even on similar tracks.

Since you can not justify this instance with free will, and this is what I have been stating, I want to know what else you propose.

I propose you have no idea what free will is.

It is not off point. If all it takes to be evil is the absence of good then rocks are evil because they are not morally good. This is why I disagree with saying that evil is the absence of good. It is either a blatantly wrong definition or at best a fairly incomplete one.

Yes, it's incomplete. I said that when I began .To define evil would take books and books. I tried to explain that already.

Why will it never exist ? Are you placing a limitation on omnipotence ?

No. It won't exist because for it to exist, everything would have to fundamentally change. That's no a plausible outcome. What you are doing is creating a strawman so you can tear it down.

Even different humans can use different definitions. But how God sees omninevolent is irrelevant. I am arguing over the claim that humans make.

It doesn't matter what the claims are that humans make. We can say certain things about God, and then make arguments for those, but it doesn't necessarily reflect God, or God's understanding. More so, the definition of omnibenevolent you are using is so strict that it doesn't mean much in this discussion as you're ignoring everything that doesn't agree with your narrow view of it.

Why not ? Can you think of a greater good ?

Wouldn't matter. Humans are limited. Just because I couldn't think of a greater good doesn't mean their isn't one.

Elaborate.

You switched the goal posts mid argument. You can't argue for something then only to change the meaning later on and say you're right.

You haven't addressed my request in that quote.

Nor am I going to as this conversation is going no where.

Not to me, I am afraid. But if you can point out where you have done so, I will take that back.

I told you where to find it. If you're unwilling to even do a little bit of work, I can't help you.

Isn't that what I have just said?

You claimed we are claiming to know something. You're just not taking things in context, and this conversation is going nowhere.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

God and Evil, working towards a solution

As part of a class I'm taking, I'm working towards an argument to show that it is rational to believe in God. But before I get to that point, I'm looking at what is probably the biggest stumbling block, which is the question of theodicy; why does evil exist if God is all loving and all powerful.

I'm linking to a podcast episode (and article) that goes more in depth about this all, but to sum it up, there are two main reasons why suffering exists with a God who is all loving.

First, God is limited. God limits Godself in order for humans to be humans, and to have some sort of power. It also allows God to be in a relationship with humans.

Second, humans are also limited. We aren't perfect, and we make mistakes. We also have free will, which allows us to make horrible decisions that end up having long lasting impacts.

The link goes much deeper into this, but the suggestion that I'm getting at is that God limits Himself, so we can be what we are created to be. We have power ourselves, and because of that, God expects us to step up and and fight against oppression, and towards justice. In other words, God works through us.

This is only part of the solution.

The other part is to remember that we humans, as condition of having a stolen (not granted) Knowledge of Good and Evil, have a distorted version of it, and probably call things good that aren't and evil that aren't.

Before this, humans would simply decide God's Plan is God's Plan, and neither good nor evil. But after, if something happens we fail to understand good aspects. Say a snow storm hits. But it happens while you are at the house of someone you secretly love. You are snowed in together, and you have the opportunity to admit your feelings to them. At the same time, it's cold and miserable because the power shut out, and you have to bundle together for warmth or you die.

Is this event good? Or evil?