The problem of evil; is it evidence for God's nonexistence?

[ChristineM]

The problem with evil is that it's a supernatural concept. So using the word evil automatically assumes gods.

 

[PureX]

No, on several counts.

The assertion that "God is good" is a personal, subjective, unverifiable claim. So anything related to that claim is likewise only personally, subjectively, and unverifiably relevant.

Example: claiming that Santa Claus does NOT appear to wear a red suit says nothing whatever about the existence of Santa Claus.

The myth that "God is good" has no bearing on the actuality of God's nature or whether or not God actually exists. Negating a myth does not negate a reality.

 

[firedragon]

No, on several counts.

The assertion that "God is good" is a personal, subjective, unverifiable claim. So anything related to that claim is likewise only personally, subjectively, and unverifiably relevant.

Example: claiming that Santa Claus does NOT appear to wear a red suit says nothing whatever about the existence of Santa Claus.

The myth that "God is good" has no bearing on the actuality of God's nature or whether or not God actually exists. Negating a myth does not negate a reality.

That's not the topic really.

 

[firedragon]

Evil is evidence of existence of good, since if there is no good it's impossible to define evil.
But if we talk about evil as evil spirits and their manifestation then this proves existence of good spirits and indirectly God since God is a spirit.

I think problem of evil is not an argument useful to argue about existence or non-existence of God, a much better argument would be historical written documents which help in research on how religion developed.
ex. heresies, grimoires, mythologies, ancients writings and similar texts, tell a lot on the nature of religion and how it developed, and this IMO far better argument than problem of evil, what both approaches have in common is that both theists and atheists will blindly dismiss anything that goes against their position, but that's irrelevant to draw conclusion.

Interesting.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, on several counts.

The assertion that "God is good" is a personal, subjective, unverifiable claim. So anything related to that claim is likewise only personally, subjectively, and unverifiably relevant.

It isn't subjective if we use the religion's own beliefs about what God considers "good."

Effectively, the Problem of Evil calls attention to a discrepancy:

- God designed the world to some sort of standard.
- the state of the world tells us that this standard was not achieved.

The exact standard used for the argument doesn't matter that much. The conventional PoE uses goodness & evil, but the logic of the argument would work just as well if the standard was "God hates flamingos."

Example: claiming that Santa Claus does NOT appear to wear a red suit says nothing whatever about the existence of Santa Claus.

That depends what we mean when we say "Santa Claus."

If by Santa Claus, we mean "a magical old man in a red suit who delivers presents to children in a flying sleigh at Christmas," then disproving any element of that - e.g. establishing that the suit can't be red - disproves Santa Claus.

The myth that "God is good" has no bearing on the actuality of God's nature or whether or not God actually exists. Negating a myth does not negate a reality.

Negating a claim means that the claim is false.

The fact that other people claim the truth of other concepts using the same word doesn't change this.

 

[sun rise]

"is it evidence for God's nonexistence?".

I would say it depends on our conception of "evil" and "God".

What is considered evil varies by time and culture. At one point sacrificing a child to the gods for the good of the community was considered "good". Now of course we consider it absolute "evil". What is considered an absolute good in Islamic cultures, the Quran, is considered evil by some Christians.

Then we have the question of our view of God. Is God separate from creation judging it according to a scripture? Is Divinity, God, according to advaita the only reality while what we think we see is illusion making the bipolarity of good and evil only part of illusion?

My perspective can be summed up in two rounds that I love: "Let these words be inscribed in your heart: Nothing is real but God. Nothing matters but love for God" and "The Divine Beloved is always with you, in you and around you. Know you are not separate from Him"

 

[pearl]

I think the reality of evil is no more than a spin-off of life, without which evil could not exist.

 

[firedragon]

I would say it depends on our conception of "evil" and "God".

What is considered evil varies by time and culture. At one point sacrificing a child to the gods for the good of the community was considered "good". Now of course we consider it absolute "evil". What is considered an absolute good in Islamic cultures, the Quran, is considered evil by some Christians.

Then we have the question of our view of God. Is God separate from creation judging it according to a scripture? Is Divinity, God, according to advaita the only reality while what we think we see is illusion making the bipolarity of good and evil only part of illusion?

My perspective can be summed up in two rounds that I love: "Let these words be inscribed in your heart: Nothing is real but God. Nothing matters but love for God" and "The Divine Beloved is always with you, in you and around you. Know you are not separate from Him"

Does any of that prove the non-existence of God?

 

[sun rise]

Does any of that prove the non-existence of God?

To give my statement in another way: how can a concept of the limited intellect, evil, which changes over time,disprove the existence of God, that which is everything and everywhere. It can't.

 

[Koldo]

The problem of evil is not a new topic. The topic of theodicy has been in existence probably since time immemorial, but the curious fact is that a lot of times it props up without an external objection. That is, from the theists who engage in theodicy. So the external objection I refer to is from atheists.

The reason for this topic is due to a few atheists assessing "the problem of evil" as the best argument atheists posit as evidence for God's nonexistence. Do they really? I know some atheists do make that argument but do they really make it to mean God does not exist? Does that even work?

The usual argument is that a good God (the usually repeated terms like all knowing, omnibenevolent, etc) has allowed evil in this universe thus it's a contradiction. This thread is not meant to discuss this contradiction, but to discuss the topic; "is it evidence for God's nonexistence?".

It is logically absurd to make that argument and it's illogical for a theist to think this is the atheists best argument against the existence of God. First steps first. The maximum it could prove is that God is not good, not so good, not as good as you thought, bad, or evil. It can never be an argument against the existence God, logically speaking.

• If an atheist is making this argument with that intention, how would it prove God does not exist?
• If a theist thinks this is the best argument atheists give against the existence of God, on what basis?

What say you?

Depends...
If one holds that for a god to be God (capital G) he has to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then the problem of evil proves that God doesn't exist.
If however we are working with a more malleable definition for God, then no, the problem of evil doesn't prove that.

 

[firedragon]

To give my statement in another way: how can a concept of the limited intellect, evil, which changes over time,disprove the existence of God, that which is everything and everywhere. It can't.

Right. Thanks Sun Rise.

 

[Balthazzar]

The problem of evil is not a new topic. The topic of theodicy has been in existence probably since time immemorial, but the curious fact is that a lot of times it props up without an external objection. That is, from the theists who engage in theodicy. So the external objection I refer to is from atheists.

The reason for this topic is due to a few atheists assessing "the problem of evil" as the best argument atheists posit as evidence for God's nonexistence. Do they really? I know some atheists do make that argument but do they really make it to mean God does not exist? Does that even work?

The usual argument is that a good God (the usually repeated terms like all knowing, omnibenevolent, etc) has allowed evil in this universe thus it's a contradiction. This thread is not meant to discuss this contradiction, but to discuss the topic; "is it evidence for God's nonexistence?".

It is logically absurd to make that argument and it's illogical for a theist to think this is the atheists best argument against the existence of God. First steps first. The maximum it could prove is that God is not good, not so good, not as good as you thought, bad, or evil. It can never be an argument against the existence God, logically speaking.

• If an atheist is making this argument with that intention, how would it prove God does not exist?
• If a theist thinks this is the best argument atheists give against the existence of God, on what basis?

What say you?

Evil. Calamity, hardship, something unpleasant, etc.

How would this suggest non existence?

 

[firedragon]

If one holds that for a god to be God (capital G) he has to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then the problem of evil proves that God doesn't exist.

No. That can only prove he is holding the wrong view. Maximum. Just because you disprove someones position, that does not prove non-existence of God. It's not logical, and is already said in the OP.

If however we are working with a more malleable definition for God, then no, the problem of evil doesn't prove that.

This has nothing to do with definitions of God. Evangelists are trained to attack peoples positions, that does not prove anything absolute. It can only address an epistemic stance.

 

[firedragon]

Evil. Calamity, hardship, something unpleasant, etc.

How would this suggest non existence?

That's the question.

 

[Link]

I believe it's true if it's first intended intention was other then a perfect world. It would not disprove a Creator as you said, but it would disprove the Perfect ultimate being.

To me it's solved because:

(1) God tried to create a perfect world.
(2) It was perfect except for an anomaly (Iblis)
(3) Iblis was hard to deal with, since, destroying him would make a lesson for all creatures to never disobey God, then God would be "forcing" Worship.
(4) God is dealing with the "damages" to creation in the best manner possible and in a way that always offered a solution through his Messengers.
(5) If humans would accept the Messengers, suffering would end or be down to such a small insignificant degree.
(6) God is dealing with "rejection" of truth and Messengers on pandemic scale in the best manner trying to solve in the best manner.
(7) Trying to cure the disease of insincerity to God passed generation to generation, in the best manner.

You have to understand that the fallen world was created, once, God's representative wavered from the path and didn't trust the voice of God to be of the True God for certain. The earth and it's trials thus was necessary to humble humans and try them - but Noah was expected to succeed. Adam's Successors up to Nuh were all meant to be followed.

Everything has gone haywire. It's easy to blame God, but he is doing his best.

This might make him look weak, and so yes, he can force the issue of guidance, he could've made sure every soul got it's guidance, but such a world were everyone has no will towards God has little reward for belief and travelling to God would not be meaningful nor worship of God that much meaning.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Irrelevant to the topic. But thanks for giving another topic for the future. If I open a topic on that, I will quote you.

Actually not so irrelevant.

It's pointing out that the notion of evil has nothing to do with existence or non existence of anything.

 

[Koldo]

No. That can only prove he is holding the wrong view. Maximum. Just because you disprove someones position, that does not prove non-existence of God. It's not logical, and is already said in the OP.

This has nothing to do with definitions of God. Evangelists are trained to attack peoples positions, that does not prove anything absolute. It can only address an epistemic stance.

What's your argument for what is the proper definition for the term 'God'?

 

[Aupmanyav]

That's the question.

The answer is that in some religions, God is mentioned as loving, in others as testing, eternally, putting people to difficulties..

 

[Link]

No, on several counts.

The assertion that "God is good" is a personal, subjective, unverifiable claim. So anything related to that claim is likewise only personally, subjectively, and unverifiably relevant.

Example: claiming that Santa Claus does NOT appear to wear a red suit says nothing whatever about the existence of Santa Claus.

The myth that "God is good" has no bearing on the actuality of God's nature or whether or not God actually exists. Negating a myth does not negate a reality.

This is perhaps the best answer. But I would offer this. The world with this much suffering requires an explanation from God. It can't be God is sitting on the sidelines doing nothing.

Problem of evil is a conjecture saying there is no explanation. I believe this almost true, but that there is only one explanation and all other explanations fail. So I take side of atheists on all explanations failing, except I believe the one from God is rational and explains the situation.

This why when I was non-Muslim, the problem of evil I was obsessed with trying to solve. I was never satisfied with any explanation I tried to make for it, because it was irrational, without guidance from God.

God looks even worse if he doesn't offer a solution (perfect religion) and guidance for humans.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

(1) God tried to create a perfect world.
(2) It was perfect except for an anomaly (Iblis)

So then God failed.

"Except for an anomaly" means there was a degree of failure