Problem of Evil Revisited

[Stevicus]

We don't know this. We just assume it, so we can blame God for it. But we all had an equal chance at being born a king, or a pauper. And if we humans would distribute power and wealth equitably, no one would be born into either. So again, why are we blaming God for being born into conditions that we created?

Well, of course, we don't even know if God exists, so this is all supposition. But if we assume that God exists and that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, believing that "the Lord moves in mysterious ways" and that "everything happens for a reason," then the implication is that God is acting behind the scenes in order to achieve some sort of "result" as part of a "divine plan."

If none of that is true, then we're back to square one.

Again, we don't know any of this to be so. We just assume it so we can blame God for it. But we humans know where these disasters are most likely to strike, and we know how to protect ourselves from them. But we live there, anyway, and do nothing to prepare for them. So why is it God's fault when one strikes and we succumb to it?

The disasters don't always strike in an expected fashion. However, it's not just disasters, it's disease, or other maladies which affect humans.

And to humans' credit, we have worked hard to prepare for all these things that are visited upon us. We have had to shape and alter our environment, build structures to protect us from the ravages of nature, find cures to diseases, delve into genetic testing (which some religionists decry as messing in "God's work"). We had to teach ourselves these things, learning through thousands of years of trial and error - and most of the errors were the result of people believing in God and believing that we must simply accept "God's will."

When it comes to the "problem of evil," this is where the rubber meets the road. It's easy and convenient to blame humans and our alleged "free will" for the evil of this world, but what is that really saying?

When did "evil" in humans really begin? Was it when we were created? Or is it because humans don't like to feel cold, hunger, pain, or other such travails of life?

Imagine an early human, unable to find food or shelter, yet sees another human who has both but not enough to share. So, the first human decides "Hey, if I kill this guy, then I can eat his food, take over his shelter, and I will survive." According to religion, this human is exercising his "free will" to do evil.

But let's look at this more closely: Why would this person be hungry and cold in the first place? Who designed humans to get hungry in the first place? Who designed humans to require copious amounts of food on a daily basis? If humans were designed so that they could live on a single grain of rice every year, then I guarantee that most "evil" probably never would have happened. That's not because of humans and their "free will," but because of a bad "Designer."

Again, we make this assumption so we can blame God. But we produce these Hitlers by the way we treat each other, and we allow their insanity to flourish until it finally threatens us. So who's fault is it when it grows so deadly that it does finally threaten us, and it takes a world war to stop it?

But people did try to stop it sooner. If we're talking about the "free will" of humans which God supposedly allows, then why would God allow the free will of Hitler to prevail over the free will of those who were trying to get rid of him?

Even back in the Garden of Eden, God set up Adam and Eve to fail. If there's any truth to any of these stories about God, then He must be seen as a master manipulator who messes around with people, sets them up to fail, and then justifies His "punishment" by the abstract notion that humans have "free will," as if it has nothing to do with anything that God has done.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

None of us knows if or what "God" is. So we invent images and ideas that we apply to the possibility of God's being. I'm not "dancing around it", I'm saying it outright.

If your response to theists (or other theists - I'm still not clear on whether you're an atheist and you never answered when I asked you directly) is just going to be to shout them down - as you have been throughout this thread - then you'll never have meaningful dialogue.

... though maybe that suits you fine.

Our idea of "God" is self-serving, which is why we choose to maintain and believe in it. But how is it serving us? That's the real question we need to be asking. Is it serving us by aiding and abetting our ignorance, bias, and irresponsibility? Or is it serving us by humbling our outrageous egos, and by helping us to empathize with the suffering of others, and by giving us the courage and desire to love, forgive, and be kind and generous to ourselves and to others?
The only way the God debate becomes meaningful is if we ask ourselves how our idea of God is serving us in our life. Debating whether or not God exists, or what God's nature is, or what God is responsible for, is irrelevant in and of itself because none of us knows the answers to those questions. What is relevant is how we are each choosing to idealize "God", and how that ideology is serving us in our own lives.

I don't think the 'let's blame it all on God' meme is serving those who hold it very well. I think it gives them an excuse to remain stupid and lazy regarding the problem of human suffering.

And I don't think that you threadjacking this discussion to push your own agenda serves those of us who want to talk about the issues at hand.

 

[PureX]

Well, of course, we don't even know if God exists, so this is all supposition. But if we assume that God exists and that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, believing that "the Lord moves in mysterious ways" and that "everything happens for a reason," then the implication is that God is acting behind the scenes in order to achieve some sort of "result" as part of a "divine plan."

The disasters don't always strike in an expected fashion. However, it's not just disasters, it's disease, or other maladies which affect humans.

And to humans' credit, we have worked hard to prepare for all these things that are visited upon us. We have had to shape and alter our environment, build structures to protect us from the ravages of nature, find cures to diseases, delve into genetic testing (which some religionists decry as messing in "God's work"). We had to teach ourselves these things, learning through thousands of years of trial and error - and most of the errors were the result of people believing in God and believing that we must simply accept "God's will."

When it comes to the "problem of evil," this is where the rubber meets the road. It's easy and convenient to blame humans and our alleged "free will" for the evil of this world, but what is that really saying?

When did "evil" in humans really begin? Was it when we were created? Or is it because humans don't like to feel cold, hunger, pain, or other such travails of life?

Imagine an early human, unable to find food or shelter, yet sees another human who has both but not enough to share. So, the first human decides "Hey, if I kill this guy, then I can eat his food, take over his shelter, and I will survive." According to religion, this human is exercising his "free will" to do evil.

But let's look at this more closely: Why would this person be hungry and cold in the first place? Who designed humans to get hungry in the first place? Who designed humans to require copious amounts of food on a daily basis? If humans were designed so that they could live on a single grain of rice every year, then I guarantee that most "evil" probably never would have happened. That's not because of humans and their "free will," but because of a bad "Designer."

But people did try to stop it sooner. If we're talking about the "free will" of humans which God supposedly allows, then why would God allow the free will of Hitler to prevail over the free will of those who were trying to get rid of him?

Even back in the Garden of Eden, God set up Adam and Eve to fail. If there's any truth to any of these stories about God, then He must be seen as a master manipulator who messes around with people, sets them up to fail, and then justifies His "punishment" by the abstract notion that humans have "free will," as if it has nothing to do with anything that God has done.

The bottom line in all of this is the assumption that bad things should not happen to us because we are good people. We assume we know what "good and bad" are, that we are "good". And therefor God is "bad" for not acting in accordance with our judgments.

 

[PureX]

If your response to theists (or other theists - I'm still not clear on whether you're an atheist and you never answered when I asked you directly) is just going to be to shout them down - as you have been throughout this thread - then you'll never have meaningful dialogue.

... though maybe that suits you fine.

And I don't think that you threadjacking this discussion to push your own agenda serves those of us who want to talk about the issues at hand.

Do you think God is to blame for human suffering? And if so, what do you gain in your life from holding that assumption? If not, then why are you promoting/debating that idea?

 

[Stevicus]

The bottom line in all of this is the assumption that bad things should not happen to us because we are good people. We assume we know what "good and bad" are, that we are "good". And therefor God is "bad" for not acting in accordance with our judgments.

I'm not sure that I would read it that way. Religion imposes rules upon humans, purported to be inspired by God, and states that we must follow these rules - or we are "evil." Supposedly, we have the "free will" to choose to follow these rules or not. If we don't, then the assumption carries that "God is just" and that He has the right to judge us, punish us, or even condemn us for all eternity because of our "sins."

It's based on our knowledge of these "rules," supposedly inspired by God, that we know what "good and bad" are. If religion is anything to go by, then God is the one who told us. Moreover, we're not the ones making "judgments" here. The central theme of religion is that God is the one issuing the "judgments," but then when one looks at the big picture, one might ask "Just who does God think He is to presume to judge us?"

 

[Stevicus]

Do you think God is to blame for human suffering? And if so, what do you gain in your life from holding that assumption? If not, then why are you promoting/debating that idea?

I would say God is to blame for presuming to judge humans if and when humans try to alleviate some of the suffering.

For some reason, an episode of "Black Sheep Squadron" comes to mind, where an American fighter pilot was shot down and took refuge on a Japanese-held island. He came across a French missionary and a nun who were running an orphanage. The missionary was trying to help shelter the pilot and keep the Japanese from finding him, while the nun was balking about it and thought they should turn him in. The priest was recounting a story about how much he admired and respected the nun, as she took great risks to go out and steal food so she could feed the orphans. But he also mentioned how she stayed up all night wearing out her knees and making heartfelt prayers for forgiveness for her "sin" of stealing.

This is an example of the kind of thinking that really bugs me about religion and how people look at the issue of "sin," "free will," and "evil."

 

[PureX]

I'm not sure that I would read it that way. Religion imposes rules upon humans, purported to be inspired by God, and states that we must follow these rules - or we are "evil." Supposedly, we have the "free will" to choose to follow these rules or not. If we don't, then the assumption carries that "God is just" and that He has the right to judge us, punish us, or even condemn us for all eternity because of our "sins."

It's based on our knowledge of these "rules," supposedly inspired by God, that we know what "good and bad" are. If religion is anything to go by, then God is the one who told us. Moreover, we're not the ones making "judgments" here. The central theme of religion is that God is the one issuing the "judgments," but then when one looks at the big picture, one might ask "Just who does God think He is to presume to judge us?"

We define the gods, we define the rules, we determine that our gods made the rules, we determine what justice is when when the rules are not followed ... are you seeing a pattern, here?

So the question becomes, what are WE getting out of all of this?

 

[Stevicus]

We define the gods, we define the rules, we determine that our gods made the rules, we determine what justice is when when the rules are not followed ... are you seeing a pattern, here?

So the question becomes, what are WE getting out of all of this?

Well, if there is no God and "we" are making all this up, then the only thing "we" get out of it is...politics - which can be both good and bad.

 

[PureX]

I would say God is to blame for presuming to judge humans if and when humans try to alleviate some of the suffering.

For some reason, an episode of "Black Sheep Squadron" comes to mind, where an American fighter pilot was shot down and took refuge on a Japanese-held island. He came across a French missionary and a nun who were running an orphanage. The missionary was trying to help shelter the pilot and keep the Japanese from finding him, while the nun was balking about it and thought they should turn him in. The priest was recounting a story about how much he admired and respected the nun, as she took great risks to go out and steal food so she could feed the orphans. But he also mentioned how she stayed up all night wearing out her knees and making heartfelt prayers for forgiveness for her "sin" of stealing.

This is an example of the kind of thinking that really bugs me about religion and how people look at the issue of "sin," "free will," and "evil."

People are idiots. That means I am an idiot, too. Yet, idiot that I am, even I can see this is so.

The idiocy of others isn't really anything we can do much about. Especially if they are not interested in doing anything about it, themselves. So my questions are about my own idiocy, and tangentially, about human idiocy as a whole.

We invent our gods. We invent the rules that our gods proclaim we must follow. We determine when those rules have been disobeyed, and we determine the consequences that breaking those rules have brought upon us. And then we blame it all on the gods when we find ourselves suffering those consequences? I may be an idiot, but even I can see the hubris, hypocrisy, and quadruple absurdity in this.

So why do we do it?

I think we do it because we are lazy, and stupid, and don't want to take responsibility for our own presumptions, and predicaments.

 

[PureX]

Well, if there is no God and "we" are making all this up, then the only thing "we" get out of it is...politics - which can be both good and bad.

I didn't say there is no God. I said we are inventing our own ideas about what God is, what God does, what God 'says', what God demands of us, and how God punishes us when we don't comply (or doesn't punish us when we think God should). But our ideologies don't validate or invalidate, nor define the existence or nature of "God". They only define what God conceptually 'looks like', to us.

And being that these god-concepts effect us, and those around us, through our actions, I believe we should take responsibility for them. And ask ourselves why we are holding onto the god-concepts that we are. And how doing so is effecting us, and effecting those around us, through our actions.

 

[Robert Landbeck]

The problem of evil is often presented as logic and reasoning for a non-benevolent God. I know it's a pretty common argument on these forums so I will be brief. I have always reconciled the problem of evil by seeing God and humans as a father child relationship of unconditional love. In the case of unconditional love, can it be said that God would necessarily allow evil due non-favoritism?

Has anyone seen the movie The Shack? Well this movie uses that argument as a man struggles with faith after losing thier youngest to a human monster. It uses a horrific example to address the problem of evil so if anyone has seen the movie, that's the kind of context I'm looking for. Why would God allow such horrible atrocities?

While I can appreciate the Father son relationship, I would only suggest that the nature of a true revelation, one that would resolve the question of evil, would be for God to reveal a moral correction that 'raises' human understanding to a greater moral condition. That is my understanding of the purpose of the Incarnation. And in the absence of such new revealed insight, I have concluded that true religion has yet to begin. That a true revelation is not the same as the theological construct that is sold by tradition.

 

[Milton Platt]

There are a whole lot of assumptions being made, here, so that we can then blame God for creating a world that doesn't treat us like gods.

So what assumptions are wrong? That the god is omnipotent? Or that the god is omniscient? Or the god is omnibenevolent? Some combination of the three, or all three?

None of them are my assumptions. They are attributes generally ascribed to the Christian god by theists. Perhaps your version of a god does not have these attributes?

 

[Regiomontanus]

It is called free will. Why would God want a bunch of automatons?

The problem of evil is often presented as logic and reasoning for a non-benevolent God. I know it's a pretty common argument on these forums so I will be brief. I have always reconciled the problem of evil by seeing God and humans as a father child relationship of unconditional love. In the case of unconditional love, can it be said that God would necessarily allow evil due non-favoritism?

Has anyone seen the movie The Shack? Well this movie uses that argument as a man struggles with faith after losing thier youngest to a human monster. It uses a horrific example to address the problem of evil so if anyone has seen the movie, that's the kind of context I'm looking for. Why would God allow such horrible atrocities?

 

[Daniel108]

The problem of evil is often presented as logic and reasoning for a non-benevolent God. I know it's a pretty common argument on these forums so I will be brief. I have always reconciled the problem of evil by seeing God and humans as a father child relationship of unconditional love. In the case of unconditional love, can it be said that God would necessarily allow evil due non-favoritism?

Shalom aleichem, May peace be with you,

We are living in an age where evil is being made to seem good, and good to be evil. This is a twisting of the truth, and an example of evil in action. DO NOT BE DECEIVED!

Each of us has the opportunity to improve ourselves, to be more loving, compassionate and unselfish through the choices we make and the consequences that are returned to us. But that does not guarantee that we will improve. Some people become bitter and hateful walking down a path to ruination. We would like to believe that no matter what we do, no matter how many people we hurt, we will end up wonderful people, but that is not the case.

Our Creator has given us Laws and Covenants to follow; if we break those laws and covenants we face dire consequences no matter what we may choose to believe. Evil exists in creation, not only in children born of our Mother Earth, but from elsewhere in the universe, and some of those are with us on Earth seeking to control our world. You know of these evildoers from the holy scriptures of many religions-- they are abominations that have no love or goodness within them. They may even be here in this forum seeking to lead you astray of the truth.

Just as there are evil beings there are godly ones. The messages of these two groups oppose each other-- one group seeks to turn you away from God, away from helping others, away from keeping yourselves pure and loving; the other group seeks to awaken you to God, to have faith in a higher, loving power that you can at-one with as you purify yourselves through loving and unselfish thoughts, feelings, and actions. Which group will you listen to, which group will you hear and follow? For your own good and the good of the world, please choose wisely.

 

[idav]

It is called free will. Why would God want a bunch of automatons?

OK but then what is God willing to allow the automatons to do, what kind of odd show does God want from humans? Wouldn't God be aware of everything happening whether good or bad?

 

[PureX]

So what assumptions are wrong? That the god is omnipotent? Or that the god is omniscient? Or the god is omnibenevolent? Some combination of the three, or all three?

Which ones are right?

My point is not that they're right or wrong. My point is that we made these conditions up, and we have no idea whether they're accurate or not.

So why did we make these conditions up as opposed to some others? What are we gaining from our having done so?

None of them are my assumptions. They are attributes generally ascribed to the Christian god by theists. Perhaps your version of a god does not have these attributes?

Why are you arguing with other people's idea of God instead of defending/debating your own? What do gain from doing that?

 

[idav]

Which ones are right?

My point is not that they're right or wrong. My point is that we made these conditions up, and we have no idea whether they're accurate or not.

So why did we make these conditions up as opposed to some others? What are we gaining from our having done so?
Why are you arguing with other people's idea of God instead of defending/debating your own? What do gain from doing that?

The problem of evil is a problem for any theist in my view, whether benevolent or not because the world is full of suffering and I even hesitate to say calling all a dream makes it any better. Does apathy or malevolence make more sense for a deity given the state of the world, or no god makes more sense perhaps, that this world proves we are left to our own devices? I am open to suggestions.

 

[Koldo]

Which ones are right?

My point is not that they're right or wrong. My point is that we made these conditions up, and we have no idea whether they're accurate or not.

So why did we make these conditions up as opposed to some others? What are we gaining from our having done so?
Why are you arguing with other people's idea of God instead of defending/debating your own? What do gain from doing that?

Short answer: Divine relevation.

 

[Nathan Malone]

We invent our gods. We invent the rules that our gods proclaim we must follow. We determine when those rules have been disobeyed, and we determine the consequences that breaking those rules have brought upon us. And then we blame it all on the gods when we find ourselves suffering those consequences?

You are talking about false gods. Your whole perception is from the angle that all gods are false. You cannot assume this. Just because man creates many gods, doesn't mean every god is false. God has periodically revealed himself through the ages to people. But man tends to reject it, and change what God has revealed. Then man changes God to a god of his own opinion. This is evident within this very post.

 

[PureX]

You are talking about false gods. Your whole perception is from the angle that all gods are false. You cannot assume this. Just because man creates many gods, doesn't mean every god is false. God has periodically revealed himself through the ages to people. But man tends to reject it, and change what God has revealed. Then man changes God to a god of his own opinion. This is evident within this very post.

You seem not to understand that we humans have no direct knowledge of "God". There is no "one true God" that can be determined from our limited and relative human perspective. There are only the many various ways that we humans choose to imagine "God", being. They aren't "false" any more than they are "true". They're just the many ways in which we humans choose to imagine "God's being".