The problem is evil solved?

[Link]

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

If God was evil, he should not be worshiped regardless if he puts us in hell or not if we refuse. God is alone worthy of worship because he is good to the extent no other being is.

 

[Alien826]

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.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. It's illustrative of what he means when he says evil doesn't exist, but that about it.

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.

Maybe, but that's better addressed to the OP. I've been trying to get him to defend his assertion, without success so far.

 

[Trailblazer]

If God was evil, he should not be worshiped regardless if he puts us in hell or not if we refuse. God is alone worthy of worship because he is good to the extent no other being is.

That's true, but do you believe that God is answerable or accountable to humans for what He does or does not do?

 

[I Am Hugh]

Maybe, but that's better addressed to the OP. I've been trying to get him to defend his assertion, without success so far.

God created the heavens and earth and man and proclaimed it all good. So, when was evil created and why? Part of the problem is that evil takes on a meaning that transcends bad. It has a dark sinister connotation. The other part of the problem is that traditional (apostate) Christianity clung to the pagan adoption of hell, which they eventually lessened to being a "separation from God." Then interpreted verses indicating the removal of hell, death, sin, Satan and God's presence reunited with mankind.

Just prior to Satan deceiving Eve, and Adam going along with it because he feared being alone, i.e. "the fall of man," or "original sin," no one knew what evil or bad, was. God certainly had never had any experience with it and neither had man. What were the rules for Adam from God? Fill and subdue the earth, don't touch the tree or its fruit.

 

[Link]

Regarding evil lack of good, I would say instead they are relative to each other.

The truth is good and evil are relative. The higher goodness you are given, and you rebel against that nature, evil becomes a negative (minus something) force.

Of course, negative numbers don't actually have physical existence, but existence is not physical, so evil has a real existence, negative numbers in the spiritual world is real evil.

Satan would probably not have fallen to the degree he did if he was not Angel and worshipped God for thousands of years. But a curse descended on his knowledge.

The greater protection of goodness, then bigger evils make us fall harder then if we didn't ascend as high. We are volatile, unfortunately. We can fall, and again, since good and evil are relational, the greater wisdom light and protection we are given ,the greater the negative if we turn away from the path. This is where fear of God stays upon the path and helps facilitate victory.

The chosen ones are different in that they pledged to God sincerely before this world to the extent, they jumped and flied with that truthfulness to an extent it's too exalted and honorable to swerve from sincerity and truthfulness.

Adam (a) God always knew he would repent if he ever fell. That's why he was chosen in the first place. God didn't know he would disobey, but he knew he would obey God and repent and turn to the straight path again if he did disobey.

This is why Quran only emphasizes with respect to chosen humans and Angels, that God knows what is before them and after them. He never says the words for normal people, but rather it's a praise of his chosen.

 

[Link]

That's true, but do you believe that God is answerable or accountable to humans for what He does or does not do?

Depends on what angle you speak from. Much of Quran is presenting God's deeds in outward signs of creation so that we believe he would appoint us guides to guide us and that he communicate to us scripture.

So the signs of creation point to the inward favor of Nubuwa, Imamma, and Resalah. If we acknowledge the outward favors and reflect, we should see that God created it with a purpose and the purpose is the light of God through guidance of his chosen.

Of course, because we should know God is good and perfect, we should never question his actions as in doubt him due things we face in life.

 

[Link]

Salam

Another thread that might interest some people: The epicurean paradox

 

[Link]

@Alien826 this confirms your viewpoint The epicurean paradox

 

[Tomef]

The presence of evil is a stumbling block to belief for some people because they believe God created evil. What if evil doesnt actually exist? In science temperature measures the presence of heat and the concept of cold is just what we call the absence of heat. Cold doesnt exist is just a state of no heat. Same with evil. Evil is just a concept that we use the describe the state of being absent from God.

Do you think that someone doing something evil is the absence of them not doing it?

 

[Alien826]

It is beyond comical when atheists expect God to act like a human and follow rules that were revealed for humans and it is also completely illogical.

Just one sentence to hang my reply on.

Perhaps an analogy would help to explain the "atheists" position.

In Star Trek there was a race of aliens called Klingons. They had a militaristic society that valued conquest above all else. The human race came up against them in their exploration of space and a war resulted. OK, that's the background. How should the humans have judged the morals of the Klingons? One is to say they behave immorally by our standards and thus are "bad". Or they could say they are a different race with different values and are perfectly moral by their own standards. My point is that whichever you choose, humans had a choice to either fight the Klingons or endure great suffering at their hands. Naturally humans chose to fight. They could say that they didn't judge the Klingons based on their morality as the Klingons were perfectly moral by their own standards but there were two things that weren't going to happen. Submission to Klingon cruelty and liking the Klingons.

So, how does this apply to our relationship with (the Abrahamic) God? By any reasonable standard, God has inflicted a huge amount of suffering on us, not externally like the Klingons, but by making us the way we are. It can reasonably be argued that we can't judge God's morality by our standards, as he is the ultimate alien, but we don't have submit to it (refusing to worship God is the nearest I can come to this) and we absolutely don't have to like it!

 

[Link]

If God had knowledge of infinite soul potentials, he could just choose from that set of infinity to create souls that are perfect. He would never run out either of souls to create.

The truth is obvious he has to test us and create us to see our potential and outcome. Prophets (a) were chosen before this world, in a pre-test to souls, same with the close Angels (a) of God.

He knew they would not swerve or would not have trusted the order of the universe to their authority

Souls that didn't do as good like myself, need to be tried after. The test was meant to be easy, but Iblis made it hard on everyone, but we have no choice, but to accept that God is doing his best to save us given constraints.

One of these constraints is that prayer is inward submission to God and acceptance of his help spiritually primarily, if we go in blind, and no actions, it's like we shot with a bow without an arrow.

 

[Trailblazer]

God created the heavens and earth and man and proclaimed it all good. So, when was evil created and why?

Evil was/is not created. According to my beliefs, evil acts are committed when man breaks the Laws of God.

“God hath in that Book, and by His behest, decreed as lawful whatsoever He hath pleased to decree, and hath, through the power of His sovereign might, forbidden whatsoever He elected to forbid. To this testifieth the text of that Book. Will ye not bear witness? Men, however, have wittingly broken His law. Is such a behavior to be attributed to God, or to their proper selves? Be fair in your judgment. Every good thing is of God, and every evil thing is from yourselves. Will ye not comprehend? This same truth hath been revealed in all the Scriptures, if ye be of them that understand.”

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

Just prior to Satan deceiving Eve, and Adam going along with it because he feared being alone, i.e. "the fall of man," or "original sin," no one knew what evil or bad, was. God certainly had never had any experience with it and neither had man. What were the rules for Adam from God? Fill and subdue the earth, don't touch the tree or its fruit.

I do not believe in a being called Satan. I believe that Satan as referred to in the Bible represents the lower nature of man, the evil ego within.

I do not believe that an Adam and Eve ever existed. I believe a person called Adam existed, and he was the first prophet of the Adamic Cycle of religion, not a man who lived in a garden with Eve. I believe that story is allegorical, not literal.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 122-126

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course, because we should know God is good and perfect, we should never question his actions as in doubt him due things we face in life.

That's it in a nutshell.

 

[Trailblazer]

Perhaps an analogy would help to explain the "atheists" position.

Below you have explained your position, but that is not what most atheists have set forth as their position.
Their position is that God should intervene to prevent suffering.

In Star Trek there was a race of aliens called Klingons. They had a militaristic society that valued conquest above all else. The human race came up against them in their exploration of space and a war resulted. OK, that's the background. How should the humans have judged the morals of the Klingons? One is to say they behave immorally by our standards and thus are "bad". Or they could say they are a different race with different values and are perfectly moral by their own standards. My point is that whichever you choose, humans had a choice to either fight the Klingons or endure great suffering at their hands. Naturally humans chose to fight. They could say that they didn't judge the Klingons based on their morality as the Klingons were perfectly moral by their own standards but there were two things that weren't going to happen. Submission to Klingon cruelty and liking the Klingons.

So, how does this apply to our relationship with (the Abrahamic) God? By any reasonable standard, God has inflicted a huge amount of suffering on us, not externally like the Klingons, but by making us the way we are. It can reasonably be argued that we can't judge God's morality by our standards, as he is the ultimate alien, but we don't have submit to it (refusing to worship God is the nearest I can come to this) and we absolutely don't have to like it!

I will grant you that is world is a storehouse of suffering, but I will not grant you that God has inflicted most of this suffering upon us.
Although I will grant you that much of what happens to us is not by choice, much of human suffering is the result of human choices.

Another thing I would like to point out is that this life is not all suffering, not for most people. There are good things that God created for us to enjoy, but I never see atheists giving God any credit for those things although they surely take advantage of them!

I don't like suffering any more than you do, and I used to blame it all on God, until I realized that suffering is just part and parcel of life in a material world. We can say that God is only blameworthy for creating such a world, but then we would also have to say that God is praiseworthy for creating the 'good things.'

 

[blü 2]

Or God is all around you all the time and you can't recognize this because you just assume everything around is not God.]/quote]
It seems much more clear, not to say efficient, just to call it 'reality' or 'the universe' or 'the cosmos'.

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 don't "blindly assume" it. I conclude it on the basis of observation, learning and thought.

""Blindly assuming" would be a good way to account for belief in God and gods, though, "good" in the sense of according with the examinable evidence/

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?

Why should we assume that what we cannot comprehend is an imaginary being? Which imaginary being, for a start? Count Dracula? Sherlock? Mickey? The Presbyterian ghost of Maxwell?

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

And that experience teaches us the difference between the real ─ that which exists in the world external to the self which we know about through our senses ─ and the purely conceptual, the notional, the imaginary, which is the only way in which God and Mickey Mouse exist./

If it were otherwise, you could show them to me in reality.

There are endless descriptions of God.

But as I said, none of them is appropriate for a a being with objective existence.

If that's wrong, tell me the objective test we should use if we find a real suspect for the being known as God, to determine whether this real being is God or not.

 

[Trailblazer]

We should not assume that what we cannot comprehend is an imaginary being.

But we might believe on the evidence that what we cannot comprehend is a real being called God.

 

[Alien826]

Below you have explained your position, but that is not what most atheists have set forth as their position.
Their position is that God should intervene to prevent suffering.

I used the word atheists because you did, but of course an atheist does not believe there is such a thing as "god", so the approach tends to be accepting the theist's claims about god and debating within that context. That's what I did, with my Klingon analogy. It's kind of how would I think if I did believe there was a god?

Incidentally, the atheist view of the world makes perfect sense when examining what we experience. Get bitten by a mosquito? Life has a way of filling ecological niches and a creature that makes it's living by feeding on my blood is a perfectly reasonable thing to expect. Get struck by lightning? Lightning is the result of physical forces and perfectly explainable in that context. No need to posit some supernatural intelligence that created it all, or human rebellion that corrupted it.

I will grant you that is world is a storehouse of suffering, but I will not grant you that God has inflicted most of this suffering upon us.
Although I will grant you that much of what happens to us is not by choice, much of human suffering is the result of human choices.

This argument has been beaten to death and we won't agree, so I won't trigger another round. It just seems right to me that if we put people that are known to be violent in prison together without adequate supervision they will hurt and kill each other, and the responsibility for that is shared between the prisoners and those imprisoning them.

Another thing I would like to point out is that this life is not all suffering, not for most people. There are good things that God created for us to enjoy, but I never see atheists giving God any credit for those things although they surely take advantage of them!

Once again, the atheist doesn't believe God created anything, good or bad. But why good is not mentioned is probably, in the context of this thread anyway, because the "problem" is of "evil", not good. You've made me think about it though, and it seems to add a dimension. Why does god provide both good and bad things? Is he good or bad? Or, like us, a mixture of both?

I don't like suffering any more than you do, and I used to blame it all on God, until I realized that suffering is just part and parcel of life in a material world. We can say that God is only blameworthy for creating such a world, but then we would also have to say that God is praiseworthy for creating the 'good things.'

Back when I was (briefly) a somewhat believer, I decided that I would stick with the idea that god was not all knowing or all powerful, but mostly benevolent. It seemed likely that god came into existence as the world developed, and ever since has been trying to help us make things better, with varying degrees of success. I liked that god and wanted to be on his side.

To the reader: This was just a mental game I played, no need to point out that I was wrong.

 

[Trailblazer]

You've made me think about it though, and it seems to add a dimension. Why does god provide both good and bad things? Is he good or bad? Or, like us, a mixture of both?

I believe that God is all-good but God provides both good and bad things for humans.
The bad things are provided to help us strengthen our character and the good things are provided to help us get through the bad things.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I agree, so just because the evidence for God makes no sense to atheists that does not mean that God does not exist.

I have never said god does not exist.

I did not say that.
I said:
Do you think that God would be subject to the laws of 'human' logic?
I do not believe He is, since God is far above human logic.

I think God has His own kind of logic that is far superior to our logic.
As such we should not subject God to our piddly human logic and expect that to yield any results.

Until god explains his logic, I still think child rape and starvation is something god should eliminate.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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.

Ok, if god created a world where children get raped and people starve to death he needs to explain why.