The Problem of Evil has been solved.(?)

[Estro Felino]

The problem is that the god you claim does not exist.

The question of the OP is:
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?

And my answer was: Since God gave people (but also animals) free will, evil is a choice by man. God cannot prevent them from doing evil.
If that word (cannot) discounts the idea of an Omnipotent God, then it means He is not Omnipotent.
But He still exists.
You didn't disprove He exists.

 

[ppp]

The question of the OP is:
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?

And my answer was: Since God gave people (but also animals) free will, evil is a choice by man. God cannot prevent them from doing evil.
If that word (cannot) discounts the idea of an Omnipotent God, then it means He is not Omnipotent.
But He still exists.
You didn't disprove He exists.

I know. And my answer is that the god claim is lazy, and that it pretends it addresses the capabilities of a being capable of creating a universe. I don't care about "proving" a god does not exist. My point is that whether or not the universe is an artifact of a god, that the people claiming such a being are merely flailing about thoughtlessly. It is not God that is disproved, but that the people claiming any such being exists have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I haven't read much of the thread but I tend to go with the views of some who have to actually deal with any often labelled as being 'evil', and this recent article from one such is worth a look:

Can murderers change - or are they born evil?

The 2024 Reith lecturer shares her verdict on why violent offenders are not monsters by nature

www.bbc.co.uk

There is no scientific evidence that people are born “evil”. And in my experience, there is no such a thing as an evil person – instead, there are evil states of mind.

Deep down most of us have a capacity for cruelty but the risk factors that make some people act that out with extreme violence are specific. They are a little like the numbers in a bicycle lock. Just as all the numbers have to line up for the bicycle lock to open, multiple risk factors are usually in place before violence erupts. The most common risk factors are being young and male (with higher rates of aggression and impulsivity); being intoxicated with drugs and alcohol; having a history of family conflict and breakdown; and a history of criminal rule-breaking, external. Being in a paranoid state of mind caused by mental illness can also be a risk factor, external, though this is more rare. The most important risk factor for murder, however, is the nature of the relationship with the victim, especially a history of relationship conflict. It is well known that women are most commonly killed by male partners or family members, external, and most children are killed by their parents or step-parents. The killing of strangers is rare, and these tend to be cases where perpetrators are severely mentally unwell. So the first two numbers that align in the bicycle lock could be sociopolitical, and the next two might be specific to the perpetrator. The final number that causes the lock to spring open can be something that happens between the victim and the perpetrator – whether an offhand comment, an action perceived as a threat, or something as simple as a bad football result. (Domestic abuse soars by 38% when the England team lose, according to research by Lancaster University.) When the bicycle lock clicks into place, what is unleashed is often a wave of overwhelming emotion that distorts how the person sees everything.

Jack helped me realise that people who kill are not mindless monsters who are born that way. He was an ordinary man who had done an extraordinary thing, as with many others. None of this is an excuse for violence – and every violent crime is a tragedy for all who are involved – but monstering people is not helpful. It is simply one way to deal with rage and fear. And we miss a chance to reduce and prevent violence if we write off everyone who has murdered or abused in that way.

The whole article is worth a read.

Unfortunately, it takes intelligence and empathy, along with compassion, to ever see things this way, and the vast majority of humans mostly will not have these abilities - so Crime and Punishment is usually their simplistic solution.

 

[1213]

This is not biblical.

"6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves."

The mere act of eating the fruit was sufficient to gain knowledge.

That is your interpretation. It can also be just the realization that comes after you notice the consequences of your actions.

This has already been addressed above. The funny part is that even though Eve declares that the snake deceived her, it was God that did so. God said that touching the fruit would cause their death, but it was God himself that caused their death. Either way, this is irrelevant to this topic.

If we are accurate, God said: "and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it--dying thou dost die.'" Gen. 2:17. And that means, the day they eat, they will die by dying. This "life" is the first death, where people die. And as we can see, death is a slow process, nowadays it takes about 80 years to die. The death of A&E took little longer, but still, the day they ate, their dying started.

 

[Koldo]

That is your interpretation. It can also be just the realization that comes after you notice the consequences of your actions.

It is written that just after they ate the fruit their eyes were opened and they realized they were naked. They did gain knowledge from merely eating the fruit.

If we are accurate, God said: "and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it--dying thou dost die.'" Gen. 2:17. And that means, the day they eat, they will die by dying. This "life" is the first death, where people die. And as we can see, death is a slow process, nowadays it takes about 80 years to die. The death of A&E took little longer, but still, the day they ate, their dying started.

KJV
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

NIV
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

ESV
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

There is simply no reference to 'start dying on the day the fruit was eaten'. It was supposed to be a done deal shortly after eating the fruit. But more importantly, eating the fruit isn't what caused the death.

 

[1213]

It is written that just after they ate the fruit their eyes were opened and they realized they were naked. They did gain knowledge from merely eating the fruit.

But, Bible doesn't say it was merely from eating the fruit.

There is simply no reference to 'start dying on the day the fruit was eaten'.

Some translations are not as accurate as the one I gave.

It was supposed to be a done deal shortly after eating the fruit. But more importantly, eating the fruit isn't what caused the death.

Bible doesn't say death would be fast. Eating the fruit is what led to death.

 

[Heyo]

Bible doesn't say death would be fast. Eating the fruit is what led to death.

English Standard Version
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

 

[Koldo]

But, Bible doesn't say it was merely from eating the fruit.

Considering literally nothing else happened between eating the fruit and their eyes opening... Yes, it was from merely eating the fruit.

Some translations are not as accurate as the one I gave.

You picked the worst translation possible. It is very confusing. You can check it in the original language for yourself. There is absolutely no reference to 'start dying' on that day, but rather the assurance of death.

Bible doesn't say death would be fast. Eating the fruit is what led to death.

It was supposed to happen within the day they ate the fruit.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Free-will doesn't necessitate nasty side effects. It could have been the case that none of G-d's creatures abused their free-will ever. If that had happened, we would probably be in a different reality altogether now. Free-will necessitates the possibility of nasty side effects. They are not a necessary consequence for having a higher good, but a necessary possibility for having a higher good. Avoiding that kind of evil through not granting free-will would lead to a sub-optimal state of affairs, meaning that we shouldn't do such avoidance. But because of the element of free-will in the agent, the agent abusing their free-will to bring about the side effects, still appears to be evil.

I disagree.

Free will is just the ability to choose to act on our desires or not. We still don't get to choose our desires.

Some people just don't want to murder, for instance. The fact that these people don't murder is not because their free will has been diminished.

If God were our designer, then free will could only result in evil acts if he had instilled in us the desire to commit evil acts.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe free-will exists in Heaven too, but that it exists in being able only to choose from several good options. It's like G-d's free-will. G-d has free-will, but can only do good, because that is G-d's nature.

So you think that free will on Earth results in evil because God designed us to have an evil nature?

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

That means that it is possible, at least in principle, to have free will without any possibility to choose evil. ...

But why didn’t God devise that state of affairs from the start, and for all things that hurt us, including sin, then?

... If God were our designer, then free will could only result in evil acts if he had instilled in us the desire to commit evil acts.

So you think that free will on Earth results in evil because God designed us to have an evil nature?

Actually, Viole's feedback has initiated a rethink in me, concerning free-will. I would have hoped that the posters to this thread would all be trying to get closer to the truth regarding the PoE. But unfortunately, some posters seem insincere, and as though they only want to ridicule other people's ideas/faith without offering any reasoned argumentation. I thank Viole for somewhat shaking my certainty in some of my argumentation because it offers the opportunity for us to grow closer to the truth, and to remove errors from our thinking.

My theological research I do in my own spare time, and do not receive any funding for it. This means I'm limited in my resources to conduct it. At present, triggered by Viole's feedback, my thoughts are that maybe G-d created angels with free-will only to choose from among good options (same free-will that G-d possesses), but that something went wrong. Somehow, the fallen angels were able to choose evil. Perhaps G-d didn't anticipate this. As with my explanation of omnipotence (G-d can't make 2+2=5), perhaps G-d similarly couldn't predict this. The act of knowing can perhaps be construed as part of G-d's power, and so if G-d's power can't do things like make 2+2=5, then maybe it was an intrinsic impossibility for G-d to realise that the angels could fall as they did.

In the garden of Eden, perhaps something similar happened. G-d created man and woman only to choose from among good options, but didn't think that the Devil could ever actually tempt them to do evil.

Obviously these ideas are a bit sketchy, and incomplete.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

At present, triggered by Viole's feedback, my thoughts are that maybe G-d created angels with free-will only to choose from among good options (same free-will that G-d possesses), but that something went wrong. Somehow, the fallen angels were able to choose evil. Perhaps G-d didn't anticipate this.

This would imply a failure on God's part, then.

 

[1213]

Considering literally nothing else happened between eating the fruit and their eyes opening... Yes, it was from merely eating the fruit.

How can you say nothing else happened? Obviously they realized at that moment that the serpent had lied to them, when they knew that the fruit doesn't work as the serpent said.

 

[1213]

English Standard Version
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

I like more the Young's literal (and the Finnish 1933 translation is even better, but probably too difficult for most people here), I think it is more accurate. But, even without it, that day they died, they lost their life with God and their body started to die.

 

[ajay0]

Good and evil are considered as states of higher and lower consciousness respectively in eastern philosophy.

I had put these sayings in my signature earlier to denote the same.

Self-awareness is yoga. ~ Nisargadatta Maharaj

Awareness is the great non-conceptual perfection. ~ Dzogchen

Evil is an extreme manifestation of human unconsciousness. ~ Eckhart Tolle

Here is a thread I had created to elaborate on the same...

On Awareness-Proactivity and Unconsciousness-Ego-Reactivity...

Teachings of the Masters on Awareness-Proactivty and Unconsciousness-Ego-Reactivity.... Act. Do not react. --Sri Ravi Shankar Sin is never in action. It is always in reaction. -- Swami Chinmayananda Virtuous ( proactive) action increases intelligence, while sinful ( reactive ) acts...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Mock Turtle]

I haven't read much of the thread but I tend to go with the views of some who have to actually deal with any often labelled as being 'evil', and this recent article from one such is worth a look:

Can murderers change - or are they born evil?

The 2024 Reith lecturer shares her verdict on why violent offenders are not monsters by nature

www.bbc.co.uk

The whole article is worth a read.

Unfortunately, it takes intelligence and empathy, along with compassion, to ever see things this way, and the vast majority of humans mostly will not have these abilities - so Crime and Punishment is usually their simplistic solution.

I should have also added that she, Dr Gwen Adshead, a forensic psychiatrist, is currently giving the Reith Lectures on BBC radio as to this subject - if this was missed from the article.

 

[Koldo]

How can you say nothing else happened? Obviously they realized at that moment that the serpent had lied to them, when they knew that the fruit doesn't work as the serpent said.

"6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves."

Just read the text. Nothing happened between them eating the fruit and their eyes being opened.

 

[Koldo]

I like more the Young's literal (and the Finnish 1933 translation is even better, but probably too difficult for most people here), I think it is more accurate.

On what basis do you say it is more accurate?

But, even without it, that day they died, they lost their life with God and their body started to die.

Nope. They didn't start dying that day. This is not biblical.

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

This would imply a failure on God's part, then.

Well these ideas, as I said, are a bit sketchy.

Fall of the Angels, and why permit it?​

Perhaps G-d made the angels only to choose between various good options (the nature of G-d's free-will), but because of the way He made reality, it was possible that the angels might get tempted to do evil. Such possibility of temptation would not be part of G-d's intentional design, but an undesired, yet anticipated, side-effect of His design.

Now G-d had the choice of protecting His angels outright from receiving such temptations, from the very start. But He didn't do so (maybe), because even though the temptations weren't intended, they did facilitate that great good of angels rejecting evil and choosing good. Without such temptations, they were only able to choose from several good options, which isn't as good, as the triumph of good over evil is.

In such a scenario, G-d didn't will evil, but merely anticipated the possibility of it, as a side effect of how He had designed reality, and chose to tolerate it, because it enabled the great good of His creatures triumphing over evil, with good, through the exercise of their free-will.

After the 'Fall of the Angels', G-d decided it would be better, if He rewarded the good angels with permanently removing all temptations from them, such that they could only choose good. Even though the 'triumph over evil through free-will' was better than simply choosing good from only good options, in a normative way, there was a goodness in 'crystallising' the good angels' goodness by making them permanently good, that inclined towards doing such 'crystallisation'. Also, if G-d allowed the testing period to go on further, more angels may have fallen, such that there would come to be a 'tipping point in the balance' inclining towards doing such 'crystallisation' sooner rather than later: you don't want all the created angels to fall.

So these are some thoughts to answer your comment. They are sketchy and not solidified, but I felt that perhaps this would help you and others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well these ideas, as I said, are a bit sketchy.

Fall of the Angels, and why permit it?​

Perhaps G-d made the angels only to choose between various good options (the nature of G-d's free-will), but because of the way He made reality, it was possible that the angels might get tempted to do evil. Such possibility of temptation would not be part of G-d's intentional design, but an undesired, yet anticipated, side-effect of His design.

I'm not sure how this changes anything.

- if God couldn't prevent the side effect, then he's not omnipotent.

- if God couldn't foresee the side effect, then he's not omniscient.

- if God could prevent the side effect but chose not to, then it was an intentional part of his design.

Now G-d had the choice of protecting His angels outright from receiving such temptations, from the very start. But He didn't do so (maybe), because even though the temptations weren't intended, they did facilitate that great good of angels rejecting evil and choosing good. Without such temptations, they were only able to choose from several good options, which isn't as good, as the triumph of good over evil is.

In such a scenario, G-d didn't will evil, but merely anticipated the possibility of it, as a side effect of how He had designed reality, and chose to tolerate it, because it enabled the great good of His creatures triumphing over evil, with good, through the exercise of their free-will.

But that would mean that God did will the evil: he foresaw that it would occur and chose to proceed anyway.