God and Evil.

[Matthew78]

I am currently in the process of writing a paper on the logical problem of evil. However, I believe it would be helpful for me to understand how theists believe that God is compatible with the existence of evil. I am not looking for any argument; just a discussion on the concept of God and why he permits evil. I want to understand how people think the two are reconciable.

For theists who believe that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, I have the following questions:

1.) If God fails to permit acts that we describe and judge as evil (I have in mind here, "evils" like murder, rape, genocide, theft, acts of terrorism) then is God guilty of negligence? If not, why not?

2.) Does the (Generalized) Principle of Command Responsibility apply to God?( I have seen another argument from evil which utilizes this). If not, why not?

3.) Some theists (especially Evangelical Christians that I know of) will argue that God doesn't act to prevent evil because it infringes on the free will of human beings. But if we fail to prevent evil despite our power and knowledge to prevent it, we are guilty of negligence. Why would negligence apply to us and not to God?

4.) Some theists argue that evil is instrumental; God uses evil as a means to an end: a greater good. But I am not sure why God is limited to using means to achieve his ends rather than just bringing about the ends in themselves directly? Am I missing something or just do not understand something?

I appreciate any input!

Matthew

 

[John Martin]

I am currently in the process of writing a paper on the logical problem of evil. However, I believe it would be helpful for me to understand how theists believe that God is compatible with the existence of evil. I am not looking for any argument; just a discussion on the concept of God and why he permits evil. I want to understand how people think the two are reconciable.

For theists who believe that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, I have the following questions:

1.) If God fails to permit acts that we describe and judge as evil (I have in mind here, "evils" like murder, rape, genocide, theft, acts of terrorism) then is God guilty of negligence? If not, why not?

2.) Does the (Generalized) Principle of Command Responsibility apply to God?( I have seen another argument from evil which utilizes this). If not, why not?

3.) Some theists (especially Evangelical Christians that I know of) will argue that God doesn't act to prevent evil because it infringes on the free will of human beings. But if we fail to prevent evil despite our power and knowledge to prevent it, we are guilty of negligence. Why would negligence apply to us and not to God?

4.) Some theists argue that evil is instrumental; God uses evil as a means to an end: a greater good. But I am not sure why God is limited to using means to achieve his ends rather than just bringing about the ends in themselves directly? Am I missing something or just do not understand something?

I appreciate any input!

Matthew

Dear Mathew,


I had posted this material in another thread for which there was no response. This may not answer your questions directly but this may give you some idea of what I think is the source of evil.

My search so far for the cause of evil brought the following observations. Do not take them as definite or absolute but only tentative because there is always scope to discover new aspects.
God is absolute Good which means God does not have an opposite called Evil. In the book of genesis we read that everything that God created was good. When God created human beings he said 'very good'. If God is absolute good and God did not create evil, then from where does evil come? We need to distinguish moral evil from natural evil. For example in nature there is killing and being killed. Some birds, animals and insects live on killing. That is their nature and they are not aware that it is evil to do so.
Moral evil applies to human beings who are given the gift of self -consciousness. So what is the source of moral evil?
Relative good and relative evil are like two side of the same coin. Where there is relative good there will be relative evil. When we speak of evil we are speaking of relative evil but not Absolute Evil which does not exist.
I suggest the following for the cause of relative evil:
1. Relative evil comes from the ignorance of our true nature as the image and likeness of God or our oneness with God.
2. Relative evil belongs to the evolutionary process of human consciousness in its journey from the unconscious goodness to consciousness goodness. The light of divine consciousness is present in everyone. But people are not aware. There arises a desire to be conscious of this divine light-to become like God. Human beings project the object of their desire outside. With this desire begins the evolution of human consciousness. Human consciousness becomes fragmented- which in the book of Genesis is shown as a serpent crawling on the ground. In Hinduism this is called samsara- being seduced by the mohini, illusion.
3. Relative evil comes when we consider relative truth as the absolute truth. It is Identification with religions, with nationalities, ethnic groups and linguistic groups. This is the source of religious wars, political wars and ethnic wars. This is also connected to ignorance. People kill others for the sake of their religion, nationality and race and also are willing to die for the sake of them. The earth is divided into so many continents and countries. There are boundaries to protect and countries spend lot of money for the army. A person who has gone above the earth sees that there is only one earth. National divisions are artificial and man-made. People die or kill for man -made divisions. Relative truths see evil in those who are outside of it. Relative truths always have an enemy.
4. Relative evil comes from the psychological abuse and emotional wounds that people receive. People who are abused may abuse others.
5. Relative evil also can come from longing for love and attention. For example if a person is hungry and cannot earn, this person may become a beggar and also may become a criminal. In the same way people who starve emotionally and do not receive sufficient love and affection, may indulge in criminal behavior. Through their criminal behavior they are also longing for love and affection. This is the evil that comes from the longing of love and attention.
6. The deep longing of the human heart is love and ultimately divine love. We come from God and we have to return to God. All are longing for the love for God. In this process of discovering divine love evil also manifests. But this evil is not absolute but relative. God is absolute Good. There is no Absolute Evil. Evil belongs to the evolutionary process of human beings and with the discovery of oneness with God it comes to an end. In the beginning there is Absolute Goodness and at the end there will be Absolute Goodness. Relative evil has a beginning and an end. It is not created by God but it is a necessary by- product of human evolution towards God. When we look into the heart of person whom we consider evil we discover that that person is longing for love or God.
In the book of Genesis God told human beings not to eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. It is the knowledge of relative good and relative evil. Since Adam and Eve were in the unconscious state and they need to become conscious, eating the forbidden fruit becomes inevitable. It is only by knowing relative good and evil they will come back to the Absolute Good. They will return to the Garden of Eden again.
Serpent holding its tail is the symbol of unconscious unitary consciousness or unconscious absolute good; serpent crawling on ground is the symbol of the knowledge of relative good and evil. It is coming out of the Garden of Eden. The serpent raising its hood is the symbol of conscious unitary consciousness or conscious absolute good.
We can also use the symbol of river. One bank of the river is unconscious goodness. The water flowing in the river is the symbol of the movement of becoming-relative good and evil. The other bank of the river is conscious goodness. The purpose of our spiritual life is to pass from the one side of the bank to the other side passing through the waters.

 

[Breathe]

1.) If God fails to permit acts that we describe and judge as evil (I have in mind here, "evils" like murder, rape, genocide, theft, acts of terrorism) then is God guilty of negligence? If not, why not?

No, because I believe it's all an illusion; there is, in reality, no killing -- and all that is, is God.

In addition, as I believe we are part of God, it is our duty to stop these and right wrongs.

2.) Does the (Generalized) Principle of Command Responsibility apply to God?( I have seen another argument from evil which utilizes this). If not, why not?

Again, not to me, because all is God.

3.) Some theists (especially Evangelical Christians that I know of) will argue that God doesn't act to prevent evil because it infringes on the free will of human beings. But if we fail to prevent evil despite our power and knowledge to prevent it, we are guilty of negligence. Why would negligence apply to us and not to God?

This is only applicable if one expects God to directly intervene; that's not my view. It's our job.

4.) Some theists argue that evil is instrumental; God uses evil as a means to an end: a greater good. But I am not sure why God is limited to using means to achieve his ends rather than just bringing about the ends in themselves directly? Am I missing something or just do not understand something?

For me, everything is God experiencing new things -- as subject and object; 'evil', as we know it, would be no exception.


Though personally, I don't believe in evil, or Hell, or separation.

 

[Quintessence]

The "problem of evil" is really only a problem if you hold a very specific god-concept. It is pretty much nonexistent if:

1) You're any kind of theist who doesn't presuppose god(s) are all-benevolent AND all-powerful. If god(s) are simply all-powerful but not all-benevolent, they have no reason to intervene in "evil" events and likely are the cause of them as well. If god(s) are simply all-benevolent but not all-powerful, they do not have the power to intervene in all "evil" events.

2) You're a polytheist. The gods have different goals and purposes which span all facets of reality, including things humans would label as "evil." While all-powerful with respect to their domain, are not all-powerful in a universal sense. Various gods can and do come into conflict, the end results of which may be judged as "evil" by some humans.

3) You're any kind of deist. God(s) simply set things in motion, and they are non-interventionist in the present day.

4) You're a non-dualist or a moral nihilist. Events and occurrences are not viewed as "good" and "evil," they simply are what they are. God(s) do what they do, and moralistic judgements humans make are projections, meaning the "problem of evil" is a human-created construct.

5) You believe humans have free will and that this condition allows humans to be exceptions to certain rules, such as sidestepping divine intervention or divine command/law.

There are some more theological/philosophical beliefs that negate the "problem of evil," but I think five is enough. I fall into a theist/philosophical camp where the "problem of evil" is nonexistent. There is no issue with compatibility of you fall into one or more of the above, which I do.

 

[fallingblood]

I would suggest reading up on process theology. The classical view of God, all knowing, all powerful, and all loving has largely been rejected. Instead, a limited God is presupposed, who can still be all loving, all knowing, and even all powerful, but has limited Godself in order to allow humans to be humans.

Terence Fretheim has written some great works on this, such as Creation Untamed.

 

[ZooGirl02]

I am currently in the process of writing a paper on the logical problem of evil. However, I believe it would be helpful for me to understand how theists believe that God is compatible with the existence of evil. I am not looking for any argument; just a discussion on the concept of God and why he permits evil. I want to understand how people think the two are reconciable.

That sounds like an interesting thing to study.

For theists who believe that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, I have the following questions:

I will answer your questions to the best of my ability.

1.) If God fails to permit acts that we describe and judge as evil (I have in mind here, "evils" like murder, rape, genocide, theft, acts of terrorism) then is God guilty of negligence? If not, why not?

No, He is not. He gave us free will. If He were to prevent such things then we would not have free will.

2.) Does the (Generalized) Principle of Command Responsibility apply to God?( I have seen another argument from evil which utilizes this). If not, why not?

I am not sure what the Principle of Command Responsibility is so I can't really answer this.

3.) Some theists (especially Evangelical Christians that I know of) will argue that God doesn't act to prevent evil because it infringes on the free will of human beings. But if we fail to prevent evil despite our power and knowledge to prevent it, we are guilty of negligence. Why would negligence apply to us and not to God?

Because God is perfect and we are not. God cannot possibly be negligent because a perfect being cannot be imperfect.

4.) Some theists argue that evil is instrumental; God uses evil as a means to an end: a greater good. But I am not sure why God is limited to using means to achieve his ends rather than just bringing about the ends in themselves directly? Am I missing something or just do not understand something?

To be honest with you, I don't know how to answer this question.

I appreciate any input!

Matthew

No problem!

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I don't believe god would be either all-powerful, all-knowing, or all good.

 

[Littleman]

I am currently in the process of writing a paper on the logical problem of evil. However, I believe it would be helpful for me to understand how theists believe that God is compatible with the existence of evil. I am not looking for any argument; just a discussion on the concept of God and why he permits evil. I want to understand how people think the two are reconciable.

For theists who believe that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, I have the following questions:

1.) If God fails to permit acts that we describe and judge as evil (I have in mind here, "evils" like murder, rape, genocide, theft, acts of terrorism) then is God guilty of negligence? If not, why not?

2.) Does the (Generalized) Principle of Command Responsibility apply to God?( I have seen another argument from evil which utilizes this). If not, why not?

3.) Some theists (especially Evangelical Christians that I know of) will argue that God doesn't act to prevent evil because it infringes on the free will of human beings. But if we fail to prevent evil despite our power and knowledge to prevent it, we are guilty of negligence. Why would negligence apply to us and not to God?

4.) Some theists argue that evil is instrumental; God uses evil as a means to an end: a greater good. But I am not sure why God is limited to using means to achieve his ends rather than just bringing about the ends in themselves directly? Am I missing something or just do not understand something?

I appreciate any input!

Matthew

1- God cannot be guilty by definition. He has his reasons for everything.

2- The principle of command responsibility does not apply to God because it is a human invention.

3- Negligence applies to us and not God because God is perfect and has his reasons for everything. Anyways, people very often do fail to hold each other accountable for allowing evil and get away with it blame-free...

4- The means are a part of the end!

===

my theodicy:

This is the best of all possible worlds because God made it and he is brilliant.

Therefore everything must serve some useful purpose, and if anything were any different things would be worse. Every little detail must be necessary for the perfection of the whole: including rape, murder, genocide, etc.

We can't see the perfection of the whole because we are finite, but we will glimpse it if we go to Heaven.

 

[Sea Monkey]

Only "God” know's for sure. I believe we as human's have free-will mostly and have the power to control our own lives. This evil in the world may not be evil to a deity. Just another part of the system so to speak.

 

[Sand Dancer]

That is always such a hard topic to get your mind around. I like the Zoroastrian view that says there is an evil spirit in charge of all that's bad. I try to incorporate that into my Christian view, but I find that I'm one of a small minority that puts that much emphasis on Satan and his power. I don't know...

 

[Sir Doom]

For theists who believe that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, I have the following questions:

I don't exactly qualify for this, but I am open to the possibility that such a being MIGHT exist far more than I am open to the possibility that NO god exists. And since a great many human beings are fond of this particular concept I do ponder this being quite a bit and feel capable of answering despite the fact that I don't really believe god has any of those traits let alone all three...

Anyway, on with the show!

1.) If God fails to permit acts that we describe and judge as evil (I have in mind here, "evils" like murder, rape, genocide, theft, acts of terrorism) then is God guilty of negligence? If not, why not?

No. Its important to remember that omniscience would mean that the being is aware of these experiences not just from an observational standpoint like you and I might have experienced 9/11 for example, but from both victim and perpetrator's standpoints as well and in far more detail than those involved could even experience. Each victim endured the pain of their death, but an omniscient being endures the pain of every death. If it knows it will experience such things and still determines that they will happen, it must have a good reason. Especially if we assume that this being is all-good. If we assume something like that, then it stands to reason to assume that even the most heinous of actions must ultimately serve some benevolent purpose, even if we can't, with our weak human perception, imagine what that could be.

2.) Does the (Generalized) Principle of Command Responsibility apply to God?( I have seen another argument from evil which utilizes this). If not, why not?

I believe it does because the being must, in fact, intend for everything to happen, even if it does not personally perpetuate every action that ever happens, it is permitting them with full knowledge of how to stop them or change them and full ability to do so. The resulting reality must then be assumed to be that very Command Responsibility you speak of. Its impossible to know what it doesn't permit, after all.

3.) Some theists (especially Evangelical Christians that I know of) will argue that God doesn't act to prevent evil because it infringes on the free will of human beings. But if we fail to prevent evil despite our power and knowledge to prevent it, we are guilty of negligence. Why would negligence apply to us and not to God?

The free will argument in this case is speaking to a greater good. Freedom. For the same reason the American Justice system does not prosecute the American Nazi Party for every antisemitic hate-crime that ever happens due to the things they say because it is protected right to say what you want no matter how ridiculously ignorant it is. Someone could make a strong moral case that the American Nazi Party is guilty of negligence since they must be well aware that they are contributing to these hate crimes. But preservation of the universal freedom of speech has been determined to be more important than prosecuting every negligent act. Obviously, God feels our ability to decide how we act is more important than ensuring we act as decent human beings.

4.) Some theists argue that evil is instrumental; God uses evil as a means to an end: a greater good. But I am not sure why God is limited to using means to achieve his ends rather than just bringing about the ends in themselves directly? Am I missing something or just do not understand something?

Both missing something and not understanding something. What you are missing is the actual ends. That's what we are all missing, really. If such a being exists, we can't possibly know what it intends. Based on the three assumptions you present (omnipotence, omniscience, omni-benevolence) we can assume that whatever it intends is going to be for the greater good. Specifics are not forthcoming. That in itself is probably part of it. Our lack of specific knowledge of what 'the greater good' entails would likely destroy any semblance of free will as well and ensure only that we did everything we could to achieve those ends, resulting in something other than what we are currently resulting in... whatever that happens to be.

What you aren't understanding is that this being is not bound to time in the same way you and I are. When it created the universe, it created the start and the finish at the same time. From its standpoint it did just bring about the ends. This is how it brought it about. Why this way and not another way? That's a good question. But you might as soon ask why planets are spherical instead of conical. It could have done that... why not? Why not the way it is? There is no way for you or I to say that there is a 'better' way to do it. We don't even know what all is happening. But this being does. So it knows which way is 'best'. Obviously... the way its happening now is the 'best' way to do it. Otherwise the omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent being would do something else. But it doesn't.

I appreciate any input!

Matthew

Quite welcome!

 

[BrokenHearted2]

I am currently in the process of writing a paper on the logical problem of evil. However, I believe it would be helpful for me to understand how theists believe that God is compatible with the existence of evil. I am not looking for any argument; just a discussion on the concept of God and why he permits evil. I want to understand how people think the two are reconciable.

For theists who believe that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, I have the following questions:

1.) If God fails to permit acts that we describe and judge as evil (I have in mind here, "evils" like murder, rape, genocide, theft, acts of terrorism) then is God guilty of negligence? If not, why not?

I think you mean "prevent". God doesn't prevent humans with free will from making evil choices. Also we don't know how many evil acts are actually prevented by God, so we don't see God's pattern of behavior in that respect. People who survive evil experiences or circumstances often feel like God had a hand in their survival.

2.) Does the (Generalized) Principle of Command Responsibility apply to God?( I have seen another argument from evil which utilizes this). If not, why not?

"Command Responsibility" as I understand it is the idea that a commanding officer, being aware of a human rights violation or a war crime of someone under his command, will be held criminally liable when he does not take action.

First I don't believe God fails to take action. We reap what we sew, there are consequences, and God does not just turn a blind eye to evil.
Also, this Principle cannot apply to God, because even though commands have been issued we can chose to ignore them. We are not in a Soldier /Commanding Officer relationship with God
Lastly I believe that God works all circumstances in our lives to our good if we let Him. Evil experiences can be used to mold us into people who don't like evil. An abuse survivor can come to have a deeper knowledge of good and evil and the people who are caught up in those abusive experiences.

3.) Some theists (especially Evangelical Christians that I know of) will argue that God doesn't act to prevent evil because it infringes on the free will of human beings. But if we fail to prevent evil despite our power and knowledge to prevent it, we are guilty of negligence. Why would negligence apply to us and not to God?

I think we are only negligent in this respect if we fail to TRY and prevent evil. However I don't believe God sits back and does nothing.

4.) Some theists argue that evil is instrumental; God uses evil as a means to an end: a greater good. But I am not sure why God is limited to using means to achieve his ends rather than just bringing about the ends in themselves directly? Am I missing something or just do not understand something?

On evil being instrumental, look at it from a Physician's standpoint. Modern medicine can take something bad, like the bacteria or virus of a deadly disease, weaken it, and introduce it back into a human and the human actually produces antibodies to fight that disease. The human becomes stronger. Vaccines are made this way.

I believe that God does not eradicate evil directly because that would involve destruction all that is selfish and evil, and I believe humanity is infected with both selfishness and evil. Some people much less so than others, but infected none the less.

 

[Repox]

1.) If God fails to permit acts that we describe and judge as evil (I have in mind here, "evils" like murder, rape, genocide, theft, acts of terrorism) then is God guilty of negligence? If not, why not?

If we have freewill, then God is not responsible.

Another point of view may be those deplorable acts are defined by human societies. If God has little regard for humans, then he may assume a position of nonintervention. If God reveres other species over humans, he may respect infrahuman acts of brutality as comparable, and perhaps less objectionable inasmuch as their are not premeditated.

2.) Does the (Generalized) Principle of Command Responsibility apply to God?( I have seen another argument from evil which utilizes this). If not, why not?

No, because humans are responsible for their own actions. In order for God to be guilty of creatures' indiscretions, He would have to be a mortal being. God, a perfect and holy and has no peers and can therefore not be judged.

3.) Some theists (especially Evangelical Christians that I know of) will argue that God doesn't act to prevent evil because it infringes on the free will of human beings. But if we fail to prevent evil despite our power and knowledge to prevent it, we are guilty of negligence. Why would negligence apply to us and not to God?

Again, God is the creator and is without peers. In order to judge God you would have to be His equal. Also, because God is Holy and perfect, God can never be in error.

4.) Some theists argue that evil is instrumental; God uses evil as a means to an end: a greater good. But I am not sure why God is limited to using means to achieve his ends rather than just bringing about the ends in themselves directly? Am I missing something or just do not understand something?

I don't believe God uses evil or the bad acts of His creatures to accomplish certain ends. It is a consequence of Satan that evil exists. The greater good for God is when evil is gone. I don't believe God uses evil for good, it just exists because of Satan's rebellion against God and the angels when he was in heaven.