The Problem of Evil has been solved.(?)

[an anarchist]

yea yea I said bye-bye to this site shut up about that I'm not going to stay terminally logged in I'm enjoying my time away but I just had to share-

My reverend at my local Center for Spiritual Living (CSL) answered the Problem of Evil by asking "why not now? Why don't we stop evil now?" I am looking into the source material of the denomination of the church to understand what my reverend said. The CSL founder Ernest Holmes and source text says "Evil will remain a problem as long as any one believes in it."

The author doesn't go on to making a sound and convincing case for this line of reasoning, but I think I can pick up where he left off. Evil exists because there is free will and people choose to be evil. We don't have to be evil. We don't have to suffer. It is physically possible to not kill each other through war. It is physically possible to feed and clothe everyone on Earth. It is physically possible to alleviate so much of the suffering that we are afflicted with, but because there is free will, there is evil because people choose to be evil.

The PoE is used to discount the idea of a benevolent yet omnipotent/omniscient God. But does the idea that evil is not truly necessary but rather a "voluntary" predicament endured by man discount the idea that the PoE is logical reasoning against an omnipotent yet loving God?

 

[an anarchist]

What if there are multiple omnipotent beings that exist alongside each other, such as you and me? "Universe" i.e. "God" is omnipotent and benevolent, yet you and I exist and are also omnipotent but not benevolent. Is it fair to say that "God" does not exist or is not omnipotent? I don't think so. I believe in my own omnipotence and the omnipotence of mankind in general.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The PoE is used to discount the idea of a benevolent yet omnipotent/omniscient God. But does the idea that evil is not truly necessary but rather a "voluntary" predicament endured by man discount the idea that the PoE is logical reasoning against an omnipotent yet loving God?

No - not even close.

 

[an anarchist]

No - not even close.

as usual, no elaboration and an eye roll. Do you realize this adds nothing without elaboration and the snark actually detracts from threads every single time?

 

[an anarchist]

@Jayhawker Soule perhaps it is cathartic all this pointless bashing on my threads? youve kept it up for years and i see others complain about you doing it to them as well. But I am asking you to contribute useful posts to my threads instead of your one off statements and eye roll emojis.

 

[an anarchist]

at any rate I'm ignoring you again I already asked you of this before and said I would ignore if you kept it up bye bye @Jayhawker Soule cuz I don't want to get agitated on this site when I'm trying to have enlightening discussion so I'll put the bully on my ignore list

 

[Heyo]

yea yea I said bye-bye to this site shut up about that I'm not going to stay terminally logged in I'm enjoying my time away but I just had to share-

My reverend at my local Center for Spiritual Living (CSL) answered the Problem of Evil by asking "why not now? Why don't we stop evil now?" I am looking into the source material of the denomination of the church to understand what my reverend said. The CSL founder Ernest Holmes and source text says "Evil will remain a problem as long as any one believes in it."

The author doesn't go on to making a sound and convincing case for this line of reasoning, but I think I can pick up where he left off. Evil exists because there is free will and people choose to be evil. We don't have to be evil. We don't have to suffer. It is physically possible to not kill each other through war. It is physically possible to feed and clothe everyone on Earth. It is physically possible to alleviate so much of the suffering that we are afflicted with, but because there is free will, there is evil because people choose to be evil.

The PoE is used to discount the idea of a benevolent yet omnipotent/omniscient God. But does the idea that evil is not truly necessary but rather a "voluntary" predicament endured by man discount the idea that the PoE is logical reasoning against an omnipotent yet loving God?

Your reverend may not know what the Problem of Evil really is.
It has nothing to do with humans or free will. It is exclusively a problem of an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent god in face of unnecessary suffering from "acts of god". Eliminate or diminish one of the attributes, and the problem goes away.
That's why I don't find the PoE a good argument against gods. It only refers to one specific god and can be easily dismissed.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

at any rate I'm ignoring you again I already asked you of this before and said I would ignore if you kept it up bye bye @Jayhawker Soule cuz I don't want to get agitated on this site when I'm trying to have enlightening discussion so I'll put the bully on my ignore list

For those who prefer a discussion which is both coherent and punctuated, Stratford's

Encyclopedia of Philosophy: The Problem of Evil​

might prove worth scanning.

 

[an anarchist]

Your reverend may not know what the Problem of Evil really is.
It has nothing to do with humans or free will. It is exclusively a problem of an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent god in face of unnecessary suffering from "acts of god". Eliminate or diminish one of the attributes, and the problem goes away.
That's why I don't find the PoE a good argument against gods. It only refers to one specific god and can be easily dismissed.

I consider myself an "agnostic spiritualist" who has opinions on God and the like. I've used the Problem of Evil to dismiss the notion of an omnipotent God, but the reverend insists that there is an entity, "God" or "Universe" that is both loving and an infinite power source. Sort of like pantheism without the God not giving a crap about you part.
But why do you say it has nothing to do with humans? I think humans are a relevant part to the equation because we ourselves have access to this infinite power source, this "God" (supposedly) and therefore should be able to use this power to end evil. Personally, I view the human race as an omnipotent God. So, I suppose I answer the problem of evil by saying that a benevolent and omnipotent God exists, but we also exist and are also omnipotent, just not benevolent. So we clash and therefore there is evil. But the existence of evil does not disprove a benevolent and omnipotent God if we allow my idea that humans too are omnipotent and clash with God thereby creating evil. Thoughts?

 

[Heyo]

I consider myself an "agnostic spiritualist" who has opinions on God and the like. I've used the Problem of Evil to dismiss the notion of an omnipotent God, but the reverend insists that there is an entity, "God" or "Universe" that is both loving and an infinite power source. Sort of like pantheism without the God not giving a crap about you part.
But why do you say it has nothing to do with humans?

Because other animals can also suffer. There have been 500 million years of suffering before we even appeared on Earth.

I think humans are a relevant part to the equation because we ourselves have access to this infinite power source, this "God" (supposedly) and therefore should be able to use this power to end evil. Personally, I view the human race as an omnipotent God. So, I suppose I answer the problem of evil by saying that a benevolent and omnipotent God exists, but we also exist and are also omnipotent, just not benevolent. So we clash and therefore there is evil. But the existence of evil does not disprove a benevolent and omnipotent God if we allow my idea that humans too are omnipotent and clash with God thereby creating evil. Thoughts?

Are we really omnipotent, on par with what the biblical gods are depicted? Can we prevent volcanoes, earthquakes and meteorite impacts? Can we heal cancer? At least not now.
Can we cause volcanoes, earthquakes and meteorite impacts? Also, no.
So these events must be caused by an omnipotent, omniscient god, if it exists, and the Christian has to find excuses how this can be benevolent.

 

[wellwisher]

Good and evil appeared as an update to human consciousness; ego, so human consciousness could get beyond neutral or 1-D instinct. Good and evil is a 2-D platform for ego consciousness. Instinct is more about a 1-D good set of paths; selective advantages, for each species. This is optimized, over time, by evolution. Approaching food and running from predators are both good for survival.

When ego consciousness became more 2-D, with good and evil, another option appeared; evil. This was the fulfillment of will and choice. Humans had a choice, beyond 1-D instinct, albeit, not the best choices. This helped to break away from instinct, some of which was evil in terms of the needs of civilization. In Genesis, the tree of knowledge was in the garden before Adam and Eve ate. In that previous state, it symbolized a natural set of laws of good and evil, when consciousness started to update.

The problem was a wild card was added. What is the difference between good and evil, and right and wrong? Something can be called wrong without being evil, such as a victimless crime. Free speech is good, but racial slurs may be wrong, but not evil, since free speech is good. The negative impact, of some forms of free speech, comes down to individual subjectivity and not objectivity. Stick and stones can break your bones but names can never hurt you, unless "you", let them. T

The blending of good and evil with right and wrong confused, natural good and evil, and led to all types of atrocities; evil in the name of righteousness. Satan when he tempts Eve and Adam, sells eating from the tree of knowledge as the right thing to do, since it will give you knowledges like the gods. But the action violated the original natural law of good and evil, which was to avoid bad data addendum that could confuse natural good and evil. The tree of knowledge was not chopped down or removed, rather the tree of life was sealed. It still had a purpose.

It sort of suggests as human consciousness evolved, from natural instinct, and had reach the transition between natural instinct and willful action; before the fall, the two things were in balance in a transitional stage. After eating, instinct became unconscious; tree of life was sealed. This detachment from biological evolution, led to death, since instinct was no longer there to help with survival and moderation of appetites. Learning no longer from innate instinct, but it became external knowledge; superego of culture.

 

[dybmh]

My reverend at my local Center for Spiritual Living (CSL) answered the Problem of Evil by asking "why not now? Why don't we stop evil now?"

Because no ones's perfect, and the physical world is, at least partially, chaotic. Even if every single person on the planet took the pastor's advice, "Just stop it", sooner or later, someone would do something evil.

To summarize my objection:

Large Imperfect Group + even the tinest speck of chaos + unlimited time ---> Evil deeds

There are no exceptions. The only way out is to assert some form of perfection on either humanity or their circumstances. It can't be done and remain consistent with Christian theology.

 

[Estro Felino]

Absolutely,
you're great.

The most diabolical concept has been created by those philosophers who say that men are necessarily evil.

No. The animal part in humans is evil. But we have evolved from the animal stage.,...
at least...there are still people who act like apes greedy for bananas ...

so I see nothing but a banana party where most people compete against each other...to see who eats bananas the most,

 

[Estro Felino]

Your reverend may not know what the Problem of Evil really is.
It has nothing to do with humans or free will. It is exclusively a problem of an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent god in face of unnecessary suffering from "acts of god". Eliminate or diminish one of the attributes, and the problem goes away.
That's why I don't find the PoE a good argument against gods. It only refers to one specific god and can be easily dismissed.

Have you read Kafka's "Ein Bericht für eine Akademie"?

 

[Estro Felino]

Your reverend may not know what the Problem of Evil really is.
It has nothing to do with humans or free will. It is exclusively a problem of an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent god in face of unnecessary suffering from "acts of god". Eliminate or diminish one of the attributes, and the problem goes away.
That's why I don't find the PoE a good argument against gods. It only refers to one specific god and can be easily dismissed.

It's the other way around.
Do you really think that Nazis believed in a God? No...they were all atheists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My reverend at my local Center for Spiritual Living (CSL) answered the Problem of Evil by asking "why not now? Why don't we stop evil now?" I am looking into the source material of the denomination of the church to understand what my reverend said. The CSL founder Ernest Holmes and source text says "Evil will remain a problem as long as any one believes in it."

This sounds like a deflection instead of actually answering the problem.

In effect, he's saying that if there are problems with God's creation, we should fix them. Okay... but this says nothing about how God's creation could end up with problems in the first place... i.e. the focus of the PoE.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you really think that Nazis believed in a God? No...they were all atheists.

Is that also true of Putin and Kim Jong Un?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In effect, he's saying that if there are problems with God's creation, we should fix them. Okay... but this says nothing about how God's creation could end up with problems in the first place... i.e. the focus of the PoE.

Nor does it explain his comical and nonsensical belief in his own omnipotence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The PoE is used to discount the idea of a benevolent yet omnipotent/omniscient God. But does the idea that evil is not truly necessary but rather a "voluntary" predicament endured by man discount the idea that the PoE is logical reasoning against an omnipotent yet loving God?

No, it doesn't discount anything.

The PoE can be looked at like this:

If we take as given that God exists, the world as we see it is either in line with God's plan or not.

1) If it's in line with God's plan, then this has certain implications (i.e. that the evil and suffering in the world is willed by God and is there on purpose).

2) If it isn't in line with God's plan, then this has its own implications (i.e. that God is unable to get the universe to reflect his intended design).

The question of whether there are people doing "voluntary" things in God's creation is irrelevant. This is either a factor that God could foresee and account for (which would mean case 1) or not (which would mean case 2).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because no ones's perfect, and the physical world is, at least partially, chaotic.

But a creation reflects on its creator.

If the universe were to have a creator, then the universe being imperfect and somewhat chaotic would imply that its creator is imperfect and somewhat chaotic.