How do you reconcile the problem of evil?

[Koldo]

Naturally evil doesn't exist. It actually takes knowledge of good and evil to actually do evil deeds.

Redundant. That's a disagreement on calling it 'evil'.
And by the way, i said 'natural evil'. Natural disasters are an example of natural evil.

I'm not sure why we would want to give a person the ability to inflict suffering but not give them the ability to experience it themselves. As mentioned above, ability to be evil takes knowledge and that knowledge can always be acted on as is the case when creatures are given that sort of power.

Not exactly what i said.
You could have an evil tendency and be unable to do evil.

 

[idav]

Redundant. That's a disagreement on calling it 'evil'.
And by the way, i said 'natural evil'. Natural disasters are an example of natural evil.

I don't consider natural disasters evil because evil takes intent. A tornado doesn't intend to do evil it is natural and apathetic. Humans can't be evil without knowledge of what is good and bad. Similarly children might do bad things without knowing it but it isn't evil until the harm caused is intentional.

 

[Koldo]

I don't consider natural disasters evil because evil takes intent. A tornado doesn't intend to do evil it is natural and apathetic. Humans can't be evil without knowledge of what is good and bad. Similarly children might do bad things without knowing it but it isn't evil until the harm caused is intentional.

As i said in the first part of that post:
Redundant. That's a disagreement on calling it 'evil'.

 

[idav]

As i said in the first part of that post:
Redundant. That's a disagreement on calling it 'evil'.

I guess just calling all of nature evil works too.

 

[Koldo]

I guess just calling all of nature evil works too.

Labels are not relevant.
They are great when both parts agree on their use, as it makes communication easier.

 

[idav]

Labels are not relevant.

Defining evil is relevant.

Do babies commit evil without knowing it? Can a person commit an evil act even if they were well intentioned?

 

[Koldo]

Defining evil is relevant.

Do babies commit evil without knowing it? Can a person commit an evil act even if they were well intentioned?

Comprehending how the word 'evil' is used in the 'problem of evil' is indeed relevant. Defining what we ourselves understand by this word is not.

The focus of 'problem of evil' is not on the perpetrators. It is on the victims.

 

[idav]

The focus of 'problem of evil' is not on the perpetrators. It is on the victims.

Something bad happening to someone doesn't mean evil happened to them. Is the tornado still evil if it takes my house but spares my family?

 

[Koldo]

Something bad happening to someone doesn't mean evil happened to them. Is the tornado still evil if it takes my house but spares my family?

This is not a debate on how we should define 'evil'.

 

[vtunie]

In the end recognizing and acknowledging the problem of evil is more important than reconciling it.

Religion in its true sense is the solution to the problem. It involves recognizing that opposite to evil exists something good, driven by something called love, something for which no physical evidence exists, or can logically exist, or should, ethically, exist.

What one makes of this recognition produces all the different faiths there have ever been.

All the tools used by these faiths -- the form of worship or even the worship itself, creation myths, agents of creation and destruction, or agency of any sort, ultimate rewards and penalties, and so on -- are secondary, evolving, and can be replaced at will.

it is in that sense that no ultimate reconciliation is possible, but recognition and acknowledging that the problem exists is per se the only possible solution, at least in space and time.

 

[idav]

This is not a debate on how we should define 'evil'.

It is if your going to call natural disasters evil. Humans cause evil while nature doesn't have intent to harm. Why would god create something that is naturally evil? Maybe god created humans with the potential to harm but it would be the humans doing the harming.

 

[Koldo]

It is if your going to call natural disasters evil. Humans cause evil while nature doesn't have intent to harm. Why would god create something that is naturally evil? Maybe god created humans with the potential to harm but it would be the humans doing the harming.

It doesn't matter if i call it 'evil'.
I could create a new word that would involve what i mean by natural and moral evil, and then exchange the word 'evil' in this problem for the new word.

It is not important whether it is called 'evil' or not; what is important is that you understand what the author intends to express with this word in the problem.

 

[idav]

It doesn't matter if i call it 'evil'.
I could create a new word that would involve what i mean by natural and moral evil, and then exchange the word 'evil' in this problem for the new word.

It is not important whether it is called 'evil' or not; what is important is that you understand what the author intends to express with this word in the problem.

The problem of evil seems to be that bad things happen to people. If god is loving nothing bad would ever happen? Such is not the case because our pleasure is tied to our pain.

 

[Koldo]

The problem of evil seems to be that bad things happen to people. If god is loving nothing bad would ever happen? Such is not the case because our pleasure is tied to our pain.

You have to:

1) Establish this statement is true.

2) Establish it must necessarily be true. In other words, that it couldn't be different.

 

[vtunie]

The problem of evil is much deeper than a simplistic blaming of it on some entity you've likely constructed and have chosen to call God.

The problem is that if consciousness is an arbitrary and temporary side-effect of some physical processes alone, there is no ultimate responsibility for anything. For once you die, and the sun explodes, and everyone goes extinct -- what was all the suffering for?

There is ultimately either no meaning, or there is some ultimate meaning to these things we call goodness, and love, and responsibility. And that's what drives everything in the ethical/moral, call it spiritual plane -- and demands some sort of after-life survival, that responsibility might truly exist.

 

[idav]

You have to:

1) Establish this statement is true.

2) Establish it must necessarily be true. In other words, that it couldn't be different.

Physical pain is due to the sensation of touch reaching a threshold. Without the ability to feel then we would not feel physical pleasure or pain.

Is it possible to not have these thresholds, sure but then we'd be all powerful with few limitations. If humans were to get any more powerful than they are now, there is no telling how much worse it might get.

Showing that it can be different doesn't follow that it will be better.

 

[Koldo]

Physical pain is due to the sensation of touch reaching a threshold. Without the ability to feel then we would not feel physical pleasure or pain.

Is it possible to not have these thresholds, sure but then we'd be all powerful with few limitations. If humans were to get any more powerful than they are now, there is no telling how much worse it might get.

Showing that it can be different doesn't follow that it will be better.

Why would it be worse if we were unable to suffer?

 

[ruffen]

It is interesting how the problem of evil is dismissed by many believers as "evil is a man-made concept and completely irrelevant to God as something God would want to reduce", but at the same time they believe that our morals is given to us by God to keep us away from doing evil.

Of course if you dismiss the problem of evil sort of like "God doesn't really care about the stuff we call evil, and he never intervenes to prevent it", you are getting ever closer to realizing that there is no God that has anything to say about life on Earth and there is no God that ever intervenes or affects us in any way. Congratulations, you've taken your first step toward atheism.

 

[ruffen]

I think a much more interesting term would be "the problem of suffering and pain" - as it then becomes clearer that human beings' free will is not responsible for all of that.

It's quite simple, really. If God is omnipotent (can do anything), omniscient (knows everything) and benevolent (wants the least suffering and pain for us), why did he allow us to be susceptible to diseases and natural disasters?

If he really is GOD then he should be able to let us feel pleasure without pain, and if pain is necessary to feel pleasure, why is the pain so unevenly distributed among humans?

 

[Willamena]

1) Establish this statement is true.

Relativity does this. Pleasure and pain are defined only in contrast to each other.

2) Establish it must necessarily be true. In other words, that it couldn't be different.

Relativity exists. (Edit: More properly I should say, "Relation exists.")