The problem is evil solved?

[Trailblazer]

And as we humans struggle to end child rape and starvation god watches children getting raped and people starving to death.

God can see all kinds of things happening if God is watching. So what?

The problem of evil is really a misnomer. It should be called the problem of suffering.

It is silly and childlike to expect God to 'step in' and stop suffering.
It is also illogical to expect God to do that since it was God who intentionally created a world in which He knew there would be suffering.

This world is a storehouse of suffering.

O thou seeker of the Kingdom! Thy letter was received. Thou hast written of the severe calamity that hath befallen thee—the death of thy respected husband. That honourable man hath been so subjected to the stress and strain of this world that his greatest wish was for deliverance from it. Such is this mortal abode: a storehouse of afflictions and suffering. It is ignorance that binds man to it, for no comfort can be secured by any soul in this world, from monarch down to the most humble commoner. If once this life should offer a man a sweet cup, a hundred bitter ones will follow; such is the condition of this world. The wise man, therefore, doth not attach himself to this mortal life and doth not depend upon it; at some moments, even, he eagerly wisheth for death that he may thereby be freed from these sorrows and afflictions. Thus it is seen that some, under extreme pressure of anguish, have committed suicide.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Pages 200-201

I am not happy about this and my greatest wish is deliverance from this world, in which I have suffered almost constantly
I do not think the suffering is going to end until I go to the next world.

 

[Trailblazer]

This makes no sense at all. A creator creates, creation is a deliberate action ('create' is a verb).

God is not a creator the way most people believe since God did not create the creation.
There was no beginning to God’s creation and there was no beginning to God. Both have always existed.

“As to thy question concerning the origin of creation. Know assuredly that God’s creation hath existed from eternity, and will continue to exist forever. Its beginning hath had no beginning, and its end knoweth no end. His name, the Creator, presupposeth a creation, even as His title, the Lord of Men, must involve the existence of a servant."

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 150-151

That said, there may have been a beginning to this world, so God might have created this world, but creation includes a lot more than this world.

I suggest you read my argument again (#54), because all you've is post assertions about it without any actual reasoning.

#54
Wrong. If you can do anything, and you know all the consequences of taking any particular course of action, then, when you take some action, then you do so in the full knowledge of what will happen, then you are responsible for all the consequences, because you could have chosen any other action, with different consequences, or, for that matter, done nothing.

Full knowledge of what will happen does not imply responsibility for what happens.

Whoever causes things to happen is responsible.
Humans are the ones who cause things to happen in this world, not God.
Thus humans are responsible for all the consequences, because they could have chosen any other action, with different consequences, or, for that matter, done nothing.

Free will (in that sense) is logically nonsensical at the best of times, with respect to an omniscient, omnipotent creator, who would effectively choose every aspect of your nature, nurture, and life experiences, it's just a joke.

Free will is nonsensical to you only because it is inconvenient for your argument. It is so much easier to blame God for everything which is not only illogical, but childish. That is like a kid blaming daddy because he doesn't like what daddy did or didn't do.

The omniscient, omnipotent God did not choose every aspect of our nature, nurture, and life experiences, that's just a joke.

Regardless, omniscience would allow such a creator to know all the consequences beforehand. If it still went ahead, it is still responsible.

Knowing the consequences does not make God responsible for the consequences. That is completely illogical.

Whoever causes things to happen is responsible for the consequences.
Since this world was created, God has not caused anything to happen, since God gave man dominion over the earth.

God's foreknowledge does not cause anything to happen.

“Every act ye meditate is as clear to Him as is that act when already accomplished. There is none other God besides Him. His is all creation and its empire. All stands revealed before Him; all is recorded in His holy and hidden Tablets. This fore-knowledge of God, however, should not be regarded as having caused the actions of men, just as your own previous knowledge that a certain event is to occur, or your desire that it should happen, is not and can never be the reason for its occurrence.”

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 149-150

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why should God take over human responsibilities?

They're a tri-omni god's responsibilities. With omni- everything else comes omni-responsibility. The deity doesn't need to do what man does, but it does need to intervene when it is needed, or you can't call it tri-omni. It either doesn't know, can't help, or doesn't care, which makes it not tri-omni.

Golden Rule does not apply to God.

I judge any moral agent by that rule. If you want to call the god good, it has to be good by human standards, otherwise, the word means nothing to a human being.

When you say "she (and most decent people) would protect a vulnerable child in need" and expect God to do likewise, you are doing what many atheists do, equating God with a human being. That is a logical fallacy, the fallacy of false equivalence

No, I'm not equating a god with a human being. I'm saying that they are different, yet subject to the same rules. That's just how it is for me and probably most if not all unbelievers. We don't need to excuse or justify the described deity's behavior, and so we are free to judge according to our own values. The believer who believes is good is perfect intellectually and morally has to explain why a good god watches a child in an abandoned warehouse while it is being raped, which requires a lot of moral gymnastics and is still unconvincing to the unbeliever as you see here.

God is not subject to morality because God is not a human.

As you already know, that is not a good enough reason for me.

special pleading
argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
special pleading - Google Search
When you deliberately ignore the FACT that God is not a human being so God cannot act like a human being, because that is unfavorable to their point of view that is special pleading.

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception.[1][2][3][4][5] It is the application of a double standard.[6][7]

I still don't see a justification for a double standard in any of those words. So what if a god is not a human being?

I am not special pleading because I have justified the special exception. I justified it when I explained WHY God is an exception to a general or universal principle.

You didn't justify it to me. You justified it to yourself.

If you do not like my explanation, which is logical, that is tough tiddlywinks.

Where's your logic? All I see is a claim: "My god is exempt from moral judgment because it is a god." You'd need to give an argument why that exempts it.

God does not have behavior ... God has a will and God wills things into existence. God also ordains things to happen

Willing things into existence and ordaining things to happen is behavior, and behavior in an allegedly moral agent is never exempt from moral judgment even if you'd like it to be and even if you exempt it yourself. I'm not obligated to follow in your footsteps there just because you've chosen that way of thinking.

 

[PureX]

How is that possible? Did you mean flawed?

He said, "People are wrong about a god belief because every piece of evidence ever presented so far has logical problems and therefore cannot be true"

That sentence was itself quite illogical. It blindly presumed that just because something appears illogical that it can't be true. Which is of course, not true.

Few fit that description. Some unjustifiably assert that gods don't exist, but they are few. Most atheists are also agnostic.

Yet they all believe in their atheism, anyway. And the only reason they can give for it is that they stupidly presume that if any gods exist they would surely be able to see the evidence that would surely be present and ascertainable by them.

This is why I say that most self-proclaimed atheists are not logical at all. And are often quite dishonest when they claim to be agnostic.

The description of gods can be judged according to one's own moral values. Furthermore, you've just argued that your god doesn't know right from wrong.

That's not what he said. He wrote, "I cannot stop child rape and starvation. God can and chooses not to."

Perhaps you can address why this deity sits by and watches such things.

And have you seen this from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-YIJN1aGvgHYPERLINK "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-YIJN1aGvg&t=13m19s"&HYPERLINK ?: (some profanity just after 13:49)

Tracie (humanist): "You either have a God who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, 'When you're done, I'm going to punish you' .. If I were in a situation where I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your God."

Shane (Christian caller): "True to life, you portray that little girl as someone who is innocent. She's just as evil as you."

So what's your answer to why this deity allows children to be raped?

It doesn't seem so according to my humanist ethics. As Tracie noted above, she (and most decent people) would protect a vulnerable child in need. I understand why you want this deity exempted from such value judgments, but perhaps you can understand why the humanist won't grant that request.

We can judge that as well, and not favorably. The child can't protect itself, nor can any adult unaware of the child needing protection at that moment. Does the Golden Rule not apply to this deity with you? It does with me, and since it doesn't respect it, why should anyone respect such a god? Because it can harm them?

I understand that you're a believer and excuse this gods behavior whatever it allegedly does, but perhaps you can understand why the unbeliever doesn't. Why would he without your belief?

Agreed, but then you say this:

And this:

The god of Abraham meets my definition of "evil." It unleashed Satan on humanity. It punishes humanity for being human. It requires a blood sacrifice. It is intolerant of imperfection. It drowned most of the world. It allowed a demon to gratuitously taunt Job. And it sits by indifferently watching humanity suffer.

According to humanist standards, it's "evil" of the god that designed a world where killing is necessary for survival.

Really? This god didn't already have free will thanks to whatever laws made it and its will possible?

 

[blü 2]

Yet they all believe in their atheism, anyway. And the only reason they can give for it is that they stupidly presume that if any gods exist they would surely be able to see the evidence that would surely be present and ascertainable by them.

This is why I say that most self-proclaimed atheists are not logical at all. And are often quite dishonest when they claim to be agnostic.

1. God never appears, never says, never does.
2. God has no description appropriate to a real being, one found in the world external to the self. {He]'s only described in terms of imaginary qualities, such as omnipotence, omniscience, being perfect, infinite, eternal &c &c.
3. The descriptions, functions and powers of the gods of the earth, present and historical, are hugely various. They don't reduce to a coherent image of a single entity "God".
4. The only way God is known to exist is as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain, commonly as the result of acculturation.
5. There is no distinction between the manner in which Superman, Mickey Mouse &c exist, and the manner in which God exists.

And just to be clear, I'm an igtheist rather than an atheist because there is no coherent description of God or [his] origin, purposes, powers, preferences, morality, or benevolence, and to talk of a real God is not to know what you're talking about.

 

[PureX]

1. God never appears, never says, never does.

Or God is all around you all the time and you can't recognize this because you just assume everything around is not God.

2. God has no description appropriate to a real being, one found in the world external to the self. {He]'s only described in terms of imaginary qualities, such as omnipotence, omniscience, being perfect, infinite, eternal &c &c.

Maybe all there is "external to the self" is God. How would be able to tell? Why do you just blindly assume it's not?

3. The descriptions, functions and powers of the gods of the earth, present and historical, are hugely various. They don't reduce to a coherent image of a single entity "God".

Why would we logically presume human descriptions of an entity that we cannot comprehend should be taken as accurate? What do any of us know about God?

4. The only way God is known to exist is as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain, commonly as the result of acculturation.

The only way we know anything to exist is as an idea derived from our experience. God is no different.

5. There is no distinction between the manner in which Superman, Mickey Mouse &c exist, and the manner in which God exists.

That's just a stupid statement. They are all different, as are all concepts we humans develop as part of our experience of being.

And just to be clear, I'm an igtheist rather than an atheist because there is no coherent description of God or [his] origin, purposes, powers, preferences, morality, or benevolence, and to talk of a real God is not to know what you're talking about.

There are endless descriptions of God. They are all coherent, to whatever degree you desire them to be. But that's just our inevitable bias talking. And your igtheist atheism doesn't exclude you from any of it. Everything you accuse anyone else of regarding God you are equally guilty of. We all are, because none of us knows if or what God is. What we to know is that we are not it, and existence requires something like it. So we're facing a big fat mystery. And that means you, too.

What fascinates me is how this mystery defines each of us by how we choose to respond to it. What an amazing thing that is!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yet they all believe in their atheism, anyway. And the only reason they can give for it is that they stupidly presume that if any gods exist they would surely be able to see the evidence that would surely be present and ascertainable by them.

You still don't know what atheists actually claim, or else you still prefer to create your strawmen.

This is why I say that most self-proclaimed atheists are not logical at all. And are often quite dishonest when they claim to be agnostic.

This is typical of you: invent a strawman and then call others dishonest for thinking it.

Or God is all around you all the time and you can't recognize this because you just assume everything around is not God.

If a god is all around me, I'll need it to manifest in order to know that. Until then, I don't have a god belief.

Maybe all there is "external to the self" is God. How would be able to tell? Why do you just blindly assume it's not?

I already have a name for all that is external to me, and I don't call it a god. That name? External reality. If that includes a god that doesn't manifest distinctly, what difference would that make to any of us? What difference would knowing that it exists make? You dwell on and marvel at ideas I find useless and irrelevant.

The only way we know anything to exist is as an idea derived from our experience. God is no different.

You have never experienced a god. You experience nature and say that you feel that it implies a god. I don't.

That's just a stupid statement. They are all different

They're all different fictions with no known external referent, which means that they can all be treated the same.

There are endless descriptions of God.

None meaningful or useful. This god idea really serves no purpose for many. We call ourselves atheists. And those "endless descriptions" are pretty good evidence that you are all mythmaking.

 

[PureX]

You still don't know what atheists actually claim, or else you still prefer to create your strawmen.

This is typical of you: invent a strawman and then call others dishonest for thinking it.

If a god is all around me, I'll need it to manifest in order to know that. Until then, I don't have a god belief.

What makes you think you should know anything about It? What makes you think your ignorance warrant your "belief"? Or anyone else's?

I already have a name for all that is external to me, and I don't call it a god. That name? External reality. If that includes a god that doesn't manifest distinctly, what difference would that make to any of us? What difference would knowing that it exists make? You dwell on and marvel at ideas I find useless and irrelevant.

Except that what we know or don't know does not determine what is or isn't. Somehow you can't seem to accept this. So you "believe in" your ignorance. Just as some of the theists that you are constantly claiming are wrong and irrational are doing. And you can't see it because you are a believer in your own righteousness. As all believers are.

You have never experienced a god. You experience nature and say that you feel that it implies a god. I don't.

They're all different fictions with no known external referent, which means that they can all be treated the same.

None meaningful or useful. This god idea really serves no purpose for many. We call ourselves atheists. And those "endless descriptions" are pretty good evidence that you are all mythmaking.

Including yours. This us what you can't seem to grasp.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Except that what we know or don't know does not determine what is or isn't. Somehow you can't seem to accept this.

You didn't understand what was written to you, which was, "I already have a name for all that is external to me, and I don't call it a god. That name? External reality. If that includes a god that doesn't manifest distinctly, what difference would that make to any of us? What difference would knowing that it exists make? You dwell on and marvel at ideas I find useless and irrelevant."

Your comment is unresponsive and unjustified. Nowhere do I imply that what we know determines what exists. I'm not denying that whatever you call a god exists. I'm telling you that I find no gods, believe in no gods, and consider the matter of their existence or nonexistence irrelevant because nothing changes for me whatever the answer:

"Apatheism (a portmanteau of apathy and theism) is the attitude of apathy toward the existence or non-existence of God(s). It is more of an attitude rather than a belief, claim, or belief system."

That says it nicely.

It's fine that you find utility in the concept. I don't.

 

[PureX]

You didn't understand what was written to you, which was, "I already have a name for all that is external to me, and I don't call it a god. That name? External reality. If that includes a god that doesn't manifest distinctly, what difference would that make to any of us? What difference would knowing that it exists make? You dwell on and marvel at ideas I find useless and irrelevant."

Your comment is unresponsive and unjustified. Nowhere do I imply that what we know determines what exists. I'm not denying that whatever you call a god exists. I'm telling you that I find no gods, believe in no gods, and consider the matter of their existence or nonexistence irrelevant because nothing changes for me whatever the answer:

"Apatheism (a portmanteau of apathy and theism) is the attitude of apathy toward the existence or non-existence of God(s). It is more of an attitude rather than a belief, claim, or belief system."

That says it nicely.

It's fine that you find utility in the concept. I don't.

Except that you keep insisting that because you can see no evidence, that the logical conclusion is that there is no God. That's not indifference. That's an assertion. And furthermore, you express your belief in this assertion, which is to say that you believe that you are right. Again, this is not indifference. Which makes the claim of being indifferent very suspect, don't you think?

Also you are here, telling every theist you encounter that they are wrong. Again ... not indifferent.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you keep insisting that because you can see no evidence, that the logical conclusion is that there is no God.

No, I don't, but I don't suppose that correcting you again will make any difference. You are committed to that belief despite it being denied and contradicted repeatedly.

Why is that? Are you unable to conceive of agnosticism, or do you understand but are deliberately refusing to accept the atheists' actual claims therefore keep returning to this strawman of yours?

That's not indifference. That's an assertion.

My assertion about gods is NOT (look at that word) that they don't exist, but that I have no reason to believe that they do. Why do you refuse to assimilate that? Are you unable or just unwilling?

And furthermore, you express your belief in this assertion, which is to say that you believe that you are right.

I am right, but I am right about what I believe, not what you keep changing it into.

you are here, telling every theist you encounter that they are wrong.

About their god beliefs? Only if they believe in a god that has been ruled out, like the one said to have created the world and the first two human beings in it in six days. That didn't happen, so we can say that that particular god doesn't exist, and to assert that it does is to be wrong.

But with nondescript gods like yours, which appears to have no features, my position is always agnosticism and indifference. Can you not understand the difference between "I don't agree with you" and "You are wrong"? Assuming that you are not trolling when you write what you do, apparently not. You can't see two different ideas there the way a colorblind person can't see two different colors when looking at red and green, the difference being that the colorblind person can learn about his deficit, and it seems you can't. I say maybe gods exist, but I don't see any, and you change it to something else.

But here's where I DO call you all wrong: If you believe anything by faith, you have made a logical error. Thinking like that leads to accumulating all manner of false and unfalsifiable beliefs which at best might be comforting and at worse can lead to prison (J6 rioters and false electors who had faith in claims of hoax) or death (antivaxxers dying needlessly unvaccinated and Jonestown and Waco). Faith includes trusting unvetted sources. You might go broke doing that. It's a very poor way to think.

You're an enigma to me. When you write about politics, I largely agree with you. When you write on economics and capitalism, I also agree with you if capitalism is modified to read unregulated (or robber baron) capitalism (I'm actually a proponent of regulated capitalism supplemented by a degree of socialism). And it's because of those similarities in thought that I think you should be able to understand the difference between not believing and believing not.

But when we get to this subject and your confusion about and antipathy for atheists manifesting as changing their words and then insulting them - I can't get into your head at all. Why do you do that, I wonder. It must either be a cognitive defect (the more charitable possibility) or trolling, which I cannot rule out, but choose to not accuse you of. And since you have repeatedly refused to address the matter, I must leave it at that.

 

[Trailblazer]

They're a tri-omni god's responsibilities. With omni- everything else comes omni-responsibility.

God has absolutely no responsibilities towards humans, zero, zilch, nada. Everything that we do get from God is ONLY by God's grace.

Omniscience does not imply responsibility. There is no logical connection between the two.

Omnipotence implies ability but ability does not imply responsibility.
Omnipotence means that God only does as He chooses to, not what humans want Him to.

Here is what omnipotence means, in a nutshell. This is logic, not religious beliefs.

“Say: He ordaineth as He pleaseth, by virtue of His sovereignty, and doeth whatsoever He willeth at His own behest. He shall not be asked of the things it pleaseth Him to ordain. He, in truth, is the Unrestrained, the All-Powerful, the All-Wise.”

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 279-285

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.” Gleanings, p. 209

“God witnesseth that there is no God but Him, the Gracious, the Best-Beloved. All grace and bounty are His. To whomsoever He will He giveth whatsoever is His wish. He, verily, is the All-Powerful, the Almighty, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting.” Gleanings, p. 73

The deity doesn't need to do what man does, but it does need to intervene when it is needed, or you can't call it tri-omni. It either doesn't know, can't help, or doesn't care, which makes it not tri-omni.

God does not NEED to do a damn thing for any human being. All that we get from God is only by the grace of God.

If you want to believe that God doesn't care because He does not hop to and do what you expect Him to do, that is your choice.
Just don't claim that is logical, because it is completely illogical, as noted above.

I judge any moral agent by that rule. If you want to call the god good, it has to be good by human standards, otherwise, the word means nothing to a human being.

God is not a moral agent because God is not a human being.
To judge God by human standards is completely illogical.

No, I'm not equating a god with a human being. I'm saying that they are different, yet subject to the same rules.

If God and human beings are different, why would they be subject to the SAME rules?
Again, that is is completely illogical.

That's just how it is for me and probably most if not all unbelievers. We don't need to excuse or justify the described deity's behavior, and so we are free to judge according to our own values. The believer who believes is good is perfect intellectually and morally has to explain why a good god watches a child in an abandoned warehouse while it is being raped, which requires a lot of moral gymnastics and is still unconvincing to the unbeliever as you see here.

God does not have behavior because God is not a human being. Why do you ignore everything I say?

I still don't see a justification for a double standard in any of those words. So what if a god is not a human being?

So what if a God is not a human being? If God is not a human being God should not be expected to ACT like a human being.
Why do I have to keep posting the same fallacy over and over again?

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.

False equivalence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Meaning of Comparing Apples to Oranges When you're comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing two things that are fundamentally different and, therefore, shouldn't be compared.

Where's your logic? All I see is a claim: "My god is exempt from moral judgment because it is a god." You'd need to give an argument why that exempts it.

You can judge God till the cows come home and I am not going to give an argument why God is exempt from judgment.

All I am going to say is that humans cannot know anything about God except for what we read in scriptures, and scriptures say that God is the judge of humans, so we are subject to God's judgment, not the other way around. Your judging God is not going to hurt God since nobody can hurt God.

Willing things into existence and ordaining things to happen is behavior, and behavior in an allegedly moral agent is never exempt from moral judgment even if you'd like it to be and even if you exempt it yourself.

God is not a moral agent, God is the one who sets the standards for human morality.

Judge away, but you will never hurt God by judging Him. You only hurt yourself.

I'm not obligated to follow in your footsteps there just because you've chosen that way of thinking.

When did I ever say you were?

 

[Alien826]

How come heat isn't the absence of cold?

If that's a serious question, it's because there is only more or less heat. Cold is not a thing, it's a relative term to describe lower levels of heat.

 

[Alien826]

Yes, you are correct about that technically, but again, it's the same problem with constraints. Omniscience should be defined, for example, if God knew how to create us all his equals, he would've because he is that generous, but it's impossible to know that. So God doesn't know how to do that because it's impossible. So can future be known, yes, but not with free-will. Free-will makes it unknown just by it's nature. Free-will and known future is impossible.

Yes I agree, but all I'm saying is that the problem of evil does not allow altering the definitions. Sure, it makes sense that free will might make knowing the future impossible (or knowing the future would make free will impossible, same thing). But the problem of evil applies where God does know the future, and is able to foresee that his creation would involve lots of "evil". Anyway, your point is a good one, and the conclusion is that a "three-omni" God is not compatible with the world as we see it.

 

[Alien826]

You don't see how it comes into it? Ok

If I didnt say it then mentioning it derails the discussion

Again I never said there was a.connection between heat and evil. Maybe read before you post.

OK, either support your assertion or don't. Fine by me either way.

 

[Link]

Yes I agree, but all I'm saying is that the problem of evil does not allow altering the definitions. Sure, it makes sense that free will might make knowing the future impossible (or knowing the future would make free will impossible, same thing). But the problem of evil applies where God does know the future, and is able to foresee that his creation would involve lots of "evil". Anyway, your point is a good one, and the conclusion is that a "three-omni" God is not compatible with the world as we see it.

Okay glad we agree.

 

[Link]

God has absolutely no responsibilities towards humans, zero, zilch, nada.

In my view, he has the most responsibility and is doing his best.

 

[Link]

Salam

To anyone interested, there was a good debate to the theodicy I presented: God is nice and is doing his best to eliminate suffering.

 

[I Am Hugh]

If that's a serious question, it's because there is only more or less heat. Cold is not a thing, it's a relative term to describe lower levels of heat.

I don't understand how contextually it compares. It isn't a very good analogy because as the OP said "Same with evil. Evil is just a concept that we use the describe the state of being absent from God." If cold is the absence of heat, it is a measurement of heat. Cold, cool, warm, hot. So cold isn't the absence of heat it is less heat. Evil, then, is less God, but God. There is no scriptural support of any separation from man because to be separate it has to be removed from. Man was created "separate" from God and remains so until entering his day of rest. Although, even then, it isn't becoming a part of God. So, man has nothing to do with the cold, as it were, only God does.

Like I said from the start, evil is subjective, not a measurement of less than or separation from.

 

[Trailblazer]

In my view, he has the most responsibility and is doing his best.

That all depends upon what you mean by responsibility.

What is the true meaning of responsible?

answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management (often followed by to or for ): He is responsible to the president for his decisions.
RESPONSIBLE Definition & Meaning - Dictionary.com

Do you believe that God is answerable or accountable to humans?