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

[firedragon]

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

That's a good topic. Open a new thread on it.

 

[firedragon]

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

Nah. That's answering a question of another thread, not this one.

 

[firedragon]

As others have noted, this is not an argument that gods do not exist

Great. Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

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

If it's a waste of time or not is also a nice topic. You should have a thread on that.

 

[Link]

As others have noted, this is not an argument that gods do not exist, just tri-omni interventionalist gods like the in the Abrahamic religions. But note that the atheist doesn't need this argument to justify his atheism. He needs a compelling argument to justify belief. Atheists aren't trying to disprove gods to theists. They are explaining why they don't believe.

It would be an argument against any type of Creators in my view since it's not simply an issue of "goodness" but "maliciousness". Suffering without a purpose would be malicious and any thing with power and strength would not be that, it's only weak that seek to harm and make others suffer.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It would be an argument against any type of Creators in my view since it's not simply an issue of "goodness" but "maliciousness".

I don't think it's an argument against a deity like the deist god. There is no argument against noninterventionalist creators, since such a universe is indistinguishable from one that arose without a creator.

But that's also the basis of apatheism. It doesn't matter whether such a deity exists or existed, and knowing the answer changes nothing. Such a deity has no revelation for us, no commandments, answers no prayers, either has no interest or ability to be known, so what difference does knowing it existence make?

Suffering without a purpose would be malicious and any thing with power and strength would not be that, it's only weak that seek to harm and make others suffer.

So what do you think of a god that keeps souls conscious after death just to gratuitously torture them to the benefit of nobody except sadists? Would that god be considered weak and malicious?

 

[Link]

I don't think it's an argument against a deity like the deist god. There is no argument against noninterventionalist creators, since such a universe is indistinguishable from one that arose without a creator. But that's also the basis of apatheism. It doesn't matter whether such a deity exists or existed, and knowing the answer changes nothing.

A deistic God is non-intervening so even more defense needs to be made for why create a world with suffering. And more over, there is no hidden connecting guide to God and bring us to ascension path, so what's the purpose of it all? Why earth at all, what we are all here for?

 

[stvdv]

What say you?

This is all based on the assumption of
"God being judgmental"
Quite a few adhere to this assumption
Hence they have this so called "problem"

I don't adhere to their assumption
Hence I don't have their so called "problem"

 

[blü 2]

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?

There's no sufficient definition of a real God to make the question coherent.

So we'll need to start by imagining that for present purposes there is.

Then the existence of evil is not evidence for such a God's non-existence.

It is however evidence of such a God's malevolence.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.'

Sorry, but I have to differ.

That scenario is suspect under the best of lights. And all-out irreconciliable with any form of all-powerful, supremely benign god.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

... sounds like you mean to say that we can't tell for sure that god isn't a generous sadistic monster.

 

[Koldo]

That's a good topic. Open a new thread on it.

It pertains to this topic though. As I have said, whether the problem of evil disproves God depends upon what definition of God we are using. You have said it is improper to use the typical omnimax definition. If you are going to make a claim, I expect at least an argument.

 

[firedragon]

It pertains to this topic though.

Not at all.

 

[Koldo]

Not at all.

It does.
A common way to formulate the problem of evil is to start defining God as omnimax. Meaning that any other concept of god is not called God for the purpose of the argument. If you want to reject the definition, you can, but offering an argument would be a nice start...

 

[firedragon]

It does.

No it doesnt. Will cut and paste an old answer rather than typing out the same thing.

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.

 

[PearlSeeker]

(1) God tried to create a perfect world

Impossible. Only God is perfect. Nothing created can be equal to God.

 

[LuisDantas]

Because He is the Ultimate judge and the Lord of all and we belong to him.

This, I think, is the fundamental belief to consider here.

It is a very arbitrary, entirely unsupported belief.

It is also the lynchpin of Abrahamic doctrines in all but their most unusual and/or least consequential forms.

 

[LuisDantas]

It never ceases to amaze me how tenaciously Abrahamic theists cling to the habit of making bold claims about a god that they refuse to properly establish.

Is it so difficult for them to realize that an undefined god is meaningless and therefore discussing its existence is a waste of time at best?

 

[rational experiences]

The known argument....the God of hell. Satanic destruction.

Term I know by Satan cloud angel. Sun hence isn't Satan. Highest awareness in my presence. Says the Human theist. Conscious aware.

Sun. No God. It's consuming

God to a human science in theisms. Held cooled evolved mass. Cooled.

Said God is one state owning just Volcanic mountain law. Rock planet. Cooling evolving. Volcanic just hot mass.

Can never be an asteroid sun mass from hell cooled. As it's Not evolved.

Man was never allowed to claim the sun a God.

Yet he proves he had just because it was held. Proven dispute.

His own biggest mistake.

So we live on earth.

The atmosphere changes. It produces cloud mass. Thunder lightning.

It goes away. Disappears. Its Reactive. Cooling disappears.

Then you have life's destroyer theist. Alien believed.

Non presence first then he sees its highest held state manifest as a type of rock dust to metal.

It goes away.

He tries to convince humanity it was our form first. Our form first is human.

No he says dimension by a vision image it builds up. Next moment it's human.

What dimension exists?

None. Mass water supported by all gases combine together. Are only separately named gases. They are all one heavens however.

We live in water.

To stop a reaction it gets cooled. Scientists use water to hold it. Reactions. Another false law.

Pretty basic it ends where it does exact.

We are not metals.
We don't come from burning.

There is no argument hence why he is allowed to argue that he is correct?

Science as a human is only about human behaviour. Says as and for human only terms what I want.

I want a resource isn't life unless you intend to consume it. Our life.

As a resource doesn't just end in science as a presence. They then burn convert it as reacting science.

The argument what was termed a true God versus life's destruction.

Compare nature to nuclear is exact...it's destruction in laws.

 

[firedragon]

It never ceases to amaze me how tenaciously Abrahamic theists cling to the habit of making bold claims about a god that they refuse to properly establish.

Is it so difficult for them to realize that an undefined god is meaningless and therefore discussing its existence is a waste of time at best?

Many missionaries have a set and standard apologetic taught in their missionary schools. It used to be at brick and mortar institutions, and now on the internet. When what they taught as platforms to break in their evangelism is not to be found, they find it hard to handle it. What that means is, if something is out of their dogmatically ingrained curriculum of missionary strategy and tactics, they don't have much to say and ridicule others with in order to evangelise their dogma. They get needy, frightened, angry, and very irritated when that happens.