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

[Link]

So then God failed.

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

Sure, he takes responsibility, says he guides and misguides, and could've made sure every soul was given guidance, but his word to fill hell has become incumbent on himself on disbelievers.

I'm sure God never wanted anyone including Iblis to be misguided, but creating a forced world where everyone is forced to worship God in a non-meaningful way, is not better.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Evil is evidence of existence of good, since if there is no good it's impossible to define evil.

Evil is evidence of human wrought categories.

 

[PureX]

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.

But religion is just religion. It has no "beliefs" because it has no mind. It's just a collection of stuff people put together to help them live according to whatever theological ideals they've chosen for themselves. Religions can't tell you anything. Only the people practicing them can. And when they tell you that "God is good", they are just conveying their personal, subjective, imagined characterization of God. Like saying that Santa Claus wears a white beard and a red suit. Disproving that only disproves their imagined characterization of God. It neither proves nor disproves anything about God, itself, as an actual entity.

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."

Well, that's absurd, in that flamingos are an objective phenomenon and "good" is a subjective value assessment. So they can't function the same way, logically, at all. Liking or disliking flamingos has nothing whatever to do with flamingos existing.

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.

No, it doesn't. The myth is already mythical. There is nothing to "disprove" because it's a representation, not a reality. All you can do is claim some part of the myth or other is a misrepresentation of the reality it's purporting to represent. What reality does the mythical Santa Claus represent? What part does his "white beard and red suit" represent? How does the white beard and red suit misrepresent that reality? Now you have posed a valid argument.

"God is good"; what real world truth does this aspect of the god-myth represent? Is it representing it accurately, or is it misrepresenting it? These are the questions that would logically be asked in this instance.

Negating a claim means that the claim is false.

A mythical claim is already "false". It's a representation of the truth, not the truth, itself. Proving a myth "false" is a waste of time that illuminates nothing.

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

You shouldn't let their confusion become your confusion, however.

 

[paradox]

Evil is evidence of human wrought categories.

"wrought" is a new word to me, if by that you mean an archaic and stale category then I kind of agree.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I mean, historically, it’s been most often used by theists trying to resolve discrepancies between their beliefs and reality, ...

All theists, or primarily those who see philosophy and theology through a Western lens?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"wrought" is a new word to me, ...

OK.

 

[PureX]

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.

Well, I would offer this; let's have mankind explain IT'S allowance of evil, first. And then do something about it. Then we will have the right to demand that God do the same. Who am I to accuse you of cheating on your wife while I am cheating on mine. Right?

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.

I don't think explanations are a solution. I think solutions are the solution. I'll worry about God's bad behavior once I clean up my own.

... And God says ...

 

[Link]

The problem of evil doesn't supposed "goodness" and "evil" exists. We can say, if a God exists, or gods exists (for polytheists), they would not be malicious in intention. Creating suffering is malicious without a due explanation.

So it doesn't even have to be assume God is good. The argument is that without an ultimately meaningful purpose for all this suffering, it's malicious. Now, I would argue only weak beings are malicious and want injustice and suffering for no reason. The Creator is too powerful for that, and so it would actually disprove all notions of "Creator", not just "God".

The real problem is that pleasure is not that meaningful to the Creator(s). If it was, he/they would created us all with pleasure and no way to "suffer".

He/they wants us to suffer in a limited time, to prove patience, courage, resilience, love for the oppressed, striving for justice.

 

[Link]

Well, I would offer this; let's have mankind explain IT'S allowance of evil, first. And then do something about it. Then we will have the right to demand that God do the same. Who am I to accuse you of cheating on your wife while I am cheating on mine. Right?
I don't think explanations are a solution. I think solutions are the solution. I'll worry about God's bad behavior once I clean up my own.

You are not wrong but also not right. We should want actions and not just theory. But theory has a place to motivate action.

Thinking about it, a Creator who creates suffering for no ultimate good reason, is malicious. Malicious is weakness,, it's not a strength and so a Powerful Creator is disproven by it.

 

[Link]

I don't think explanations are a solution.

Explanation is only one part of it. The other part is he provides a leader from him. The leader in the explanation is shown to be the solution and why. But just hearing the explanation while not acting on it or understanding, doesn't mean the solution will be implemented.

 

[Koldo]

He/they wants us to suffer in a limited time, to prove patience, courage, resilience, love for the oppressed, striving for justice.

That's malicious.

 

[PureX]

You are not wrong but also not right. We should want actions and not just theory. But theory has a place to motivate action.

Thinking about it, a Creator who creates suffering for no ultimate good reason, is malicious. Malicious is weakness,, it's not a strength and so a Powerful Creator is disproven by it.

But only humans are malicious. Cancer and volcanoes are neither evil nor malicious. In fact, so far as we know, nothing in the whole universe is malicious, but us. And the only reason we see God as malicious is because we envision God as being a reflection of ourselves.

So once again I say, clean up our own act and God's actions will sort themselves out.

 

[Link]

But only humans are malicious. Cancer and volcanoes are neither evil nor malicious. In fact, so far as we know, nothing in the whole universe is malicious, but us. And the only reason we see God as malicious is because we envision God as being a reflection of ourselves.

So once again I say, clean up our own act and God's actions will sort themselves out.

I actually don't disagree with this. It's one approach, probably the best one.

 

[Link]

That's malicious.

Not if forever reward that stems from such actions is given for how we acted in limited suffering.

If pleasure > honor, you would be correct. But Honor and relationship with God in that sense, is more important to him.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not if forever reward that stems from such actions is given for how we acted in limited suffering.

How is that not malicious? Particularly coming from a supposed supremely powerful and supremely good entity?

 

[Link]

How is that not malicious? Particularly coming from a supposed supremely powerful and supremely good entity?

Because the blessings both in this world and next from the suffering outweigh the "suffering", Imam Jaffar (a) from Misbahal Shariah:

Affliction is an adornment for the believer and a mark of honour for the man of intellect, because facing it directly needs steadfastness and firm-footedness, both of which confirm belief. The Holy Prophet said, 'We, the company of the prophets, are the people who have the hardest trials, then after us come the believers, then the others like them.'

Whoever tastes the food of affliction while under Allah's protection enjoys it more than he enjoys Allah's blessing. He yearns for it when it is not there, because the lights of blessing lie under the balance of affliction and trial, and the balance of affliction and trial lies under the lights of blessing. Many are delivered from affliction and then destroyed in blessing. Allah praised none of His bondsmen, from Adam up to Muhammad, until He had tested him and seen how he fulfilled the duty of worship while in affliction. Allah's marks of honour come, in fact, at the last stage, but the afflictions themselves come in the beginning.

Whoever leaves the path of affliction is ignoring the lamp of the believers, the beacon of those near to Allah, and the guide for those on the right path. There is no good in a slave who complains of a single trial preceded by thousands of blessings and followed by thousands of comforts. Whoever does not show the patience required in affliction is deprived of thankfulness in the blessings he receives. Similarly, whoever does not give the thankfulness owed for blessings is denied the patience owed in affliction. Whoever is denied both of them is an outcast.

Ayyub said in his supplication, 'O Allah, verily seventy comforts and ease did not come to me until You sent me seventy afflictions.'

And Wahb ibn Munabbih said, 'Affliction to a believer is like a bit to a horse and a halter to a camel.' Ali said, 'Steadfastness in relation to belief is like the head to the body. The head of steadfastness is afflictions but only those who act righteously understand that.'

 

[icehorse]

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.

In general it seems like proving that a thing does NOT exist is a waste of time.

I think that - regardless of the domain - it's the responsibility of the person making the claim that something exists, to prove that claim with repeatable, predictable, reliable evidence.

 

[Koldo]

Not if forever reward that stems from such actions is given for how we acted in limited suffering.

If pleasure > honor, you would be correct. But Honor and relationship with God in that sense, is more important to him.

Even with a forever reward, it is still malicious to inflict suffering upon others to test them when they didn't ask nor consent to that.

 

[Link]

Even with a forever reward, it is still malicious to inflict suffering upon others to test them when they didn't ask nor consent to that.

There is no proof to your statement when blessings both in this world and next when facing afflictions with patience, makes them worth while peace and honor is gained through it.

 

[Koldo]

There is no proof to your statement when blessings both in this world and next when facing afflictions with patience, makes them worth while peace and honor is gained through it.

Do you understand the concept of 'consent'?
Can you explain to me why rape is wrong?
What if someone gave you a forever reward after raping you? Would that make the rape morally good?