How do Abrahamic faiths tackle the problem of evil?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is a really important question missing on the diagram, though - one that I typically point out whenever a thread like this comes up.

Is it reasonable to expect that the one-god, who is categorically different from human persons, understands what "evil" means in the same way that humans do? To me, that the answer to that question is a resounding "no" makes much of the case fall apart.

Depends on the theology, but in Christianity, absolutely yes: the "fall" occurred when humanity acquired the knowledge of good and evil. It made us "as God", according to Genesis, so the implication is that our understanding of evil matches that of God. If we don't have this, then we don't have the Fall and therefore no need for Christ's atonement.

The whole foundation of Christianity depends on humans sharing our sense of good and evil with God.

 

[Tumah]

Thanks for the reply Tumah. Does this mean that evil does not exist, except for perhaps as an illusion?

I don't know if that's the correct word. If I cover up a painting leaving only a small area, does that mean that I'm seeing an illusion or that I'm not seeing the entire painting?

How can anything move away from God, if God is everything? That would mean we are moving away into something outside of God, which would mean that God isn't everything nor created everything?

The short of it:
I use G-d here as a placeholder for a somewhat more complicated concept. What I'm referring to is closer or further from the perception of G-d. Its complicated.

Spoiler: The long of it

My understanding to date, (and I'm sure it will change with more study) is that its analogous to a face. What a face actually is, is a clump of various types of cells. But rather than different organs representative of different cells, I see a face that is representative of a person. Its something that is not what the face is, but its also what it is. Its the impression that the cells of my face gives off.

In a similar way, we have G-d. And about G-d there is absolutely nothing to be said. What we can very slightly talk about is His "light" - that is, the perspective of Him, that He gives off. Because there is nothing else besides G-d, His perspective (ie. the thing that about Him that is perceived) is in everything. Its that perception of G-d that contradicts existence (and free will). If there would be no perception of G-d in a certain conceptual thing, it would have some small amount of room for existence. So what we start off with, is G-d kind of contracting the perception of Himself (not His Self), leaving an area void of it, within which will take place the creation.

Now the problem is reversed, lacking the perception of G-d within the void, its impossible to have any type of relationship to G-d. So we put a line of this Divine Perception into the void and an extremely complicated process of dualized emanations gives rise to the universe as we know it. Its that continuum of emanations that I'm speaking about when I say moving closer or further from G-d. Closer is the more spiritual/divine side of the progression, further is more mundane/physical.

Wouldn't God having a will, but us having the choice to break that will, mean that God is not omniscient?

If He has the power to know everything, then wouldn't that mean He knows that we will make the choices that will go for/against his will? Which moots any concept of free will.

If He has also created everything, then the universe is purely deterministic and free will is an illusion. If He knows everything then the deterministic universe will result in suffering for some. In the end He has purposely made some humans to suffer, due to creating certain circumstances that result in their suffering and knowing that they don't have any real choice in the matter. This is incompatible with the concept of Him being purely benevolent.

According to my understand, part of the issue lies in the meaning of omniscience with regards to G-d. In Judaism, G-d is understood to be Simple to the extent that G-d's knowledge is just the perception of G-d being knowing. Objectively, there isn't G-d and His omniscience, His knowledge isn't something separate from Himself that you can point to. There's just G-d. The concept of G-d's knowledge (and by extension omniscience) as a discernible concept only begins at the later stage within the Divine Perception, which is where the contradiction to free will (and existence in general) occurs. But this is remedied within the void, where the Divine Perception is repeatedly suppressed and diluted by itself, in stages. The effect, is that G-d retains complete "knowledge" but it's constrained to the potential and not the manifest, creating the ability of the person to choose (but not act) without constraint.

This is my understanding based on the sources that I've read. I could easily not be understanding them clearly. I also have not finished my studies in this area by a long shot. And I could definitely not be explaining it correctly. I'm also trying to leave out a lot of information for brevity. If this makes any sense to you, great. If not, I'm not sure if I can do too much better than what I've done.

 

[MD]

I don't know if that's the correct word. If I cover up a painting leaving only a small area, does that mean that I'm seeing an illusion or that I'm not seeing the entire painting?


The short of it:
I use G-d here as a placeholder for a somewhat more complicated concept. What I'm referring to is closer or further from the perception of G-d. Its complicated.

Spoiler: The long of it

My understanding to date, (and I'm sure it will change with more study) is that its analogous to a face. What a face actually is, is a clump of various types of cells. But rather than different organs representative of different cells, I see a face that is representative of a person. Its something that is not what the face is, but its also what it is. Its the impression that the cells of my face gives off.

In a similar way, we have G-d. And about G-d there is absolutely nothing to be said. What we can very slightly talk about is His "light" - that is, the perspective of Him, that He gives off. Because there is nothing else besides G-d, His perspective (ie. the thing that about Him that is perceived) is in everything. Its that perception of G-d that contradicts existence (and free will). If there would be no perception of G-d in a certain conceptual thing, it would have some small amount of room for existence. So what we start off with, is G-d kind of contracting the perception of Himself (not His Self), leaving an area void of it, within which will take place the creation.

Now the problem is reversed, lacking the perception of G-d within the void, its impossible to have any type of relationship to G-d. So we put a line of this Divine Perception into the void and an extremely complicated process of dualized emanations gives rise to the universe as we know it. Its that continuum of emanations that I'm speaking about when I say moving closer or further from G-d. Closer is the more spiritual/divine side of the progression, further is more mundane/physical.

According to my understand, part of the issue lies in the meaning of omniscience with regards to G-d. In Judaism, G-d is understood to be Simple to the extent that G-d's knowledge is just the perception of G-d being knowing. Objectively, there isn't G-d and His omniscience, His knowledge isn't something separate from Himself that you can point to. There's just G-d. The concept of G-d's knowledge (and by extension omniscience) as a discernible concept only begins at the later stage within the Divine Perception, which is where the contradiction to free will (and existence in general) occurs. But this is remedied within the void, where the Divine Perception is repeatedly suppressed and diluted by itself, in stages. The effect, is that G-d retains complete "knowledge" but it's constrained to the potential and not the manifest, creating the ability of the person to choose (but not act) without constraint.

This is my understanding based on the sources that I've read. I could easily not be understanding them clearly. I also have not finished my studies in this area by a long shot. And I could definitely not be explaining it correctly. I'm also trying to leave out a lot of information for brevity. If this makes any sense to you, great. If not, I'm not sure if I can do too much better than what I've done.

Thanks so much for your reply. I'm not a student of philosophy or theology either, but this is good debate material. I'll get back to your post later, time to walk my dog.

 

[Tumah]

Because you're the one that said that the topic has been "hashed, re-hashed, over-hashed, and ashed."

In all that hashing, did anyone ever actually give a reasonable answer?

Edit: I took your two posts to be your way of saying that the issue has been done to death. Great - how was it finally resolved?

It was my way of saying, stop rehashing the same questions over and over. There's a search tool. Find how its tackled (whether effectively or not) there.

 

[randomvim]

Thanks for the reply Tumah. Does this mean that evil does not exist, except for perhaps as an illusion?



How can anything move away from God, if God is everything? That would mean we are moving away into something outside of God, which would mean that God isn't everything nor created everything?



Wouldn't God having a will, but us having the choice to break that will, mean that God is not omniscient?

If He has the power to know everything, then wouldn't that mean He knows that we will make the choices that will go for/against his will? Which moots any concept of free will.

If He has also created everything, then the universe is purely deterministic and free will is an illusion. If He knows everything then the deterministic universe will result in suffering for some. In the end He has purposely made some humans to suffer, due to creating certain circumstances that result in their suffering and knowing that they don't have any real choice in the matter. This is incompatible with the concept of Him being purely benevolent.

1. how would the ability to know what you will do lead us to controlling what you do?

2. isn't it "God is everywhere," not "God is everything"?

3. a father allowing a son to suffer. does this mean a father does not love the son?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Exactly what it says it means. All powerful means fully able to do anything and everything all the time.

Oh no .. not this again..
When we communicate to each other, we use language to convey something tangible. If we define words to mean "everything", including the logically impossible, then our communication no longer has any real meaning.

..so Almighty God CANNOT create a triangle with 2 sides. It's not a shortcoming of His but of ours. We should use language meaningfully.

 

[MD]

1. how would the ability to know what you will do lead us to controlling what you do?

An omnipotent God has created a deterministic universe. Knowing what you will do, creating the conditions which lead you to do those things removes the concept of free will.

3. a father allowing a son to suffer. does this mean a father does not love the son?

Depends. Did the father create the conditions to let the son suffer? How deep is the suffering?

If a father punishes a son for committing a sin, knowing fully that he created the conditions for the son to sin, and knowing that the son would sin, does that make such a father loving? I would say it makes such a father evil.

 

[MD]

Oh no .. not this again..
When we communicate to each other, we use language to convey something tangible. If we define words to mean "everything", including the logically impossible, then our communication no longer has any real meaning.

..so Almighty God CANNOT create a triangle with 2 sides. It's not a shortcoming of His but of ours. We should use language meaningfully.

You're argument supports my point. An almighty God cannot create a triangle with 2 sides, in the same way that an almighty God cannot be full of goodness and create evil.

 

[Deeje]

"Could God have created a universe with free-will but without evil? No, therefore God is not All-powerful.."

Could Almighty God create a triangle with 2-sides? No .. Does that mean that He is not All-powerful?
No .. it means that when we talk 'gibberish', our conclusions are meaningless

Great comment.

The existence of free will would be pointless without choices.

The world is full of opposites...up/down...in/out....under/over....black/white.....positive/negative....power/weakness....happy/sad....good/evil. Without opposites, what would the world be like? Without choices, what are we?

Does it prove that God is not all powerful because of the existence of evil, or does it exist as an equal opposite like everything else that we know? It is it a choice in life like so many other things? Are we forced to practice it? NO! But because of free will, some people choose to do it. Is it ever beneficial? Not that I can see.

God's words to his nation at Sinai were conclusive....
Deuteronomy 30:19-20:
"19 I take the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you today that I have put life and death before you, the blessing and the curse; and you must choose life so that you may live, you and your descendants, 20 by loving Jehovah your God, by listening to his voice, and by sticking to him, for he is your life and by him you will endure a long time in the land that Jehovah swore to give to your forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”

God did not create us to be mindless robots...he created beings who reflect his own qualities. He is free willed and he wanted his earthly children to also have choices. But remember that a knowledge of evil was barred from them by a penalty so huge, that only a deluded fool would disobey his command NOT to unleash this knowledge into the world. When another being abused his free will and tricked the first humans into disobedience, this knowledge of evil, followed by the practice of it, has plagued humanity ever since. We are reaping what they sowed.This is a very important object lesson. God isn't just telling us that we don't need evil in our lives...he is showing us where it leads. Do we learn? Some of us will.

Is God to blame for the disobedience of the first humans? Did he not put measures in place to prevent this knowledge from ruining the human race? But once the 'genie was out of the bottle' there was no sending it back.
By allowing us to see the full consequence of this knowledge, God permits us to see for ourselves where it leads. The results will set precedents for all eternity to come. In whatever plans God has for the future (it's a big universe) no rebel will ever be able to introduce evil into the world again and claim that it will be beneficial.

Forever is a long time to benefit from a lesson.

 

[muhammad_isa]

An omnipotent God has created a deterministic universe. Knowing what you will do, creating the conditions which lead you to do those things removes the concept of free will.

No! In an Einsteinian universe, there is no past, present or future ie. a deterministic universe. Free-will is not affected. If you think that we don't have free-will, perhaps you'd like to tell us what 'agent' makes our decisions for us?

 

[MD]

No! In an Einsteinian universe, there is no past, present or future ie. a deterministic universe. Free-will is not affected. If you think that we don't have free-will, perhaps you'd like to tell us what 'agent' makes our decisions for us?

I'm not arguing that there is no free will. I'm arguing that in a deterministic universe, a universe fully created and guided by God, where God knows everything, cannot have free will. Such a universe would be deterministic, and thus nullify choice. An Abrahamic universe cannot have free will.

I'm not sure what Einstein has to do with this.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You're argument supports my point. An almighty God cannot create a triangle with 2 sides, in the same way that an almighty God cannot be full of goodness and create evil.

It's not the same at all .. my example is a logical impossibility. The fact that we might not be able to understand why we have to suffer, does not mean that there isn't a good reason for it.
You might think that suffer=evil, but that does not make it so.

 

[MD]

I don't know if that's the correct word. If I cover up a painting leaving only a small area, does that mean that I'm seeing an illusion or that I'm not seeing the entire painting?

So then evil isn't an illusion, but an instrument of God to better the universe?

The short of it:
I use G-d here as a placeholder for a somewhat more complicated concept. What I'm referring to is closer or further from the perception of G-d. Its complicated.

Spoiler: The long of it

My understanding to date, (and I'm sure it will change with more study) is that its analogous to a face. What a face actually is, is a clump of various types of cells. But rather than different organs representative of different cells, I see a face that is representative of a person. Its something that is not what the face is, but its also what it is. Its the impression that the cells of my face gives off.

In a similar way, we have G-d. And about G-d there is absolutely nothing to be said. What we can very slightly talk about is His "light" - that is, the perspective of Him, that He gives off. Because there is nothing else besides G-d, His perspective (ie. the thing that about Him that is perceived) is in everything. Its that perception of G-d that contradicts existence (and free will). If there would be no perception of G-d in a certain conceptual thing, it would have some small amount of room for existence. So what we start off with, is G-d kind of contracting the perception of Himself (not His Self), leaving an area void of it, within which will take place the creation.

Now the problem is reversed, lacking the perception of G-d within the void, its impossible to have any type of relationship to G-d. So we put a line of this Divine Perception into the void and an extremely complicated process of dualized emanations gives rise to the universe as we know it. Its that continuum of emanations that I'm speaking about when I say moving closer or further from G-d. Closer is the more spiritual/divine side of the progression, further is more mundane/physical.

Your long version was a bit confusing, so I will try and summarize what you've said to understand it. Let me know if I'm right or wrong: God is everything and his perspective is in everything. The perception of his perspective contradicts existence and free will. Without perception of God we have existence. God contracts himself, leaving a void, within which there is creation. If you are within the void and do not perceive God, then you cannot have a relationship to God. Thus you are in the physical in the void, and farther from God. If you are in the spiritual, you are closer to God. Is this right?

If so, what is the void? If God is everything should the physical, the void, creation and everything all be a part of Him. Shouldn't we be as close to him in the physical as we are in the spiritual? Unless the void exists outside of God, which means that there is something outside of God. Which would mean that evil exists independent of God.

According to my understand, part of the issue lies in the meaning of omniscience with regards to G-d. In Judaism, G-d is understood to be Simple to the extent that G-d's knowledge is just the perception of G-d being knowing. Objectively, there isn't G-d and His omniscience, His knowledge isn't something separate from Himself that you can point to. There's just G-d. The concept of G-d's knowledge (and by extension omniscience) as a discernible concept only begins at the later stage within the Divine Perception, which is where the contradiction to free will (and existence in general) occurs. But this is remedied within the void, where the Divine Perception is repeatedly suppressed and diluted by itself, in stages. The effect, is that G-d retains complete "knowledge" but it's constrained to the potential and not the manifest, creating the ability of the person to choose (but not act) without constraint.

Okay so if God constrains himself to test us, but knows the outcome anyways, what is the point? He knows what we're going to do, and he has created the conditions to do it so his constraint is kind of useless.

 

[MD]

It's not the same at all .. my example is a logical impossibility. The fact that we might not be able to understand why we have to suffer, does not mean that there isn't a good reason for it.
You might think that suffer=evil, but that does not make it so.

I'm not necessarily saying suffering is evil. I'm saying that if evil exists then it's logically impossible to exist with a good God. Do you believe evil exists?

 

[jeager106]

I'm not necessarily saying suffering is evil. I'm saying that if evil exists then it's logically impossible to exist with a good God. Do you believe evil exists?

Well study the Christian Bible and learn the simplistic answer to why we have evil.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I'm not arguing that there is no free will. I'm arguing that in a deterministic universe, a universe fully created and guided by God, where God knows everything, cannot have free will. Such a universe would be deterministic, and thus nullify choice. An Abrahamic universe cannot have free will.

I'm not sure what Einstein has to do with this.

You have just repeated yourself. Basically your argument is that the Abrahamic God is impossible (because we do have free-will)

You have incomplete knowledge of the subject..
Check it out >>HERE<<

 

[MD]

You have just repeated yourself. Basically your argument is that the Abrahamic God is impossible (because we do have free-will)

You have incomplete knowledge of the subject..
Check it out >>HERE<<

Can you actually defend your point or are you going to just link websites? Even if time is relative, an all knowing God will know all possible permutations and outcomes of any action. Many physicists believe the universe is deterministic.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Can you actually defend your point or are you going to just link websites? Even if time is relative, an all knowing God will know all possible permutations and outcomes of any action. Many physicists believe the universe is deterministic.

Yes, physicists do indeed believe in a deterministic universe.
"..for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one." - Einstein

Do we possess free-will or do we not? If not, then what 'agent' is making our decisions for us? It has nothing to do with a deterministic universe .. that's the whole point .. what we think of as the future is only a perception.

 

[MD]

Yes, physicists do indeed believe in a deterministic universe.
"..for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one." - Einstein

Do we possess free-will or do we not? If not, then what 'agent' is making our decisions for us? It has nothing to do with a deterministic universe .. that's the whole point .. what we think of as the future is only a perception.

I believe we possess free will. A deterministic universe negates free will because a deterministic universe suggests that causality is the essence of reality. Free will defies causality, thus defying determinism and in effect an omnipotent and omniscient God.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Is a God that is omnipotent, omniscient and all good compatible with a universe that has evil?

Seems like it introduces paradoxes that are impossible to explain. Are there any good responses to this issue, from Abrahamic faiths? I'm actually quite curious about this and if there are any good books or thinkers who have tackled this issue I'd love to know.

This flow chart does a good job of explaining the problem.

There is no evil in existence only good. According to the Baha'i teachings God created only good. This is very clear. For instance. There is no such thing as darkness. Darkness is the absence of light. What we call evil is the absence of good.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-75.html