The Problem of Evil

[gree0232]

Some fundy Christians make their God to be a perfect loving being. That's what doesn't make perfect sense. Some try to argue that his sense of perfect justice causes him to punish sinners. But then, what about his mercy? Because of his mercy he forgives some sinners. But all people suffer because of natural disasters and evil caused by other people. Who do they blame for that? Us? We asked for it by Eve eating a fruit? I suppose they would say that before "The fall" there were no natural disasters? And there was no "evil"? I don't know.

However, the definition of "God" in this thread, ain't that God. This one embodies everything, light and darkness, good and evil. So then why did this God create a world with natural disasters? Is he/she evil? Well, yes, but totally good too. Why? I suppose because out of the mess comes new life? When somebody dies of some horrible disease or accident, we try and find ways to cure it or prevent it? So all is good in the long run. I guess.

So what does a parent do when its children grows up?

Does it let them go out into a world and make there own way? Facing set backs AND successes? Or does the loving parent lock their children in the basement and prevent their exploration to protect them from danger?

I am not sure how the later counts as love?

I am quite certain that a God who trusts us enough to let us have free will, to face the consequences of our actions, is a God that has both tremendous faith in US and tremendous love for us to allow us this opportunity.

We will ALL die. And what does it mean when we die if you believe in God? Right, we return to God. Hardly evil.

How we endure the suffering is about our character. Its GOING to happen.

And the alternative, to live a life free of consequences ... to never have anything bad happen is slavery. Its the denial of free will. Locking you in a basement.

How again is that love?

I don't trust you enough to allow you to take the risks you wish to take? Is that love or abuse?

 

[idav]

1) God can do nothing to prevent it occurring.

Or that god cant do enough without going through us since divinity is within.

 

[Koldo]

So what does a parent do when its children grows up?

Does it let them go out into a world and make there own way? Facing set backs AND successes? Or does the loving parent lock their children in the basement and prevent their exploration to protect them from danger?

I am not sure how the later counts as love?

I am quite certain that a God who trusts us enough to let us have free will, to face the consequences of our actions, is a God that has both tremendous faith in US and tremendous love for us to allow us this opportunity.

We will ALL die. And what does it mean when we die if you believe in God? Right, we return to God. Hardly evil.

How we endure the suffering is about our character. Its GOING to happen.

And the alternative, to live a life free of consequences ... to never have anything bad happen is slavery. Its the denial of free will. Locking you in a basement.

How again is that love?

I don't trust you enough to allow you to take the risks you wish to take? Is that love or abuse?

Are you really comparing as equals human parents and god?
Because the limitations that human parents have to deal with are mostly non-existent to god.

To give an example to illustrate this: It is well known the importance of vaccines. But what if you could instantly ( without any extra cost or hassle ) make your children immune to diseases? What would justify sticking a needle into your children?

Human parents can not make their children grow without exposing them to certain risks. But that is a limitation on their power. A limitation that is not imposed upon god. And even so, we still limit the risks that children get exposed to by a large degree.

God does not need to lock you away in a basement to protect you from harm. He can simply make you invulnerable to anything and everything, because such is the might of omnipotence.

You need to think on what omnipotence really entails.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

He can simply make you invulnerable to anything and everything, because such is the might of omnipotence.

And what good would that accomplish?

 

[gree0232]

Are you really comparing as equals human parents and god?
Because the limitations that human parents have to deal with are mostly non-existent to god.

To give an example to illustrate this: It is well known the importance of vaccines. But what if you could instantly ( without any extra cost or hassle ) make your children immune to diseases? What would justify sticking a needle into your children?

Human parents can not make their children grow without exposing them to certain risks. But that is a limitation on their power. A limitation that is not imposed upon god. And even so, we still limit the risks that children get exposed to by a large degree.

God does not need to lock you away in a basement to protect you from harm. He can simply make you invulnerable to anything and everything, because such is the might of omnipotence.

You need to think on what omnipotence really entails.

We do call him Heavenly Father ... so .. yes.

and why do you think God can make us grow WITHOUT exposing us to risks? Or, given the illogic of omnipotence, why WOULD he?

He gave us life, not slavery.

He's not going to do everything for us, or we are slaves. Comprende?

 

[cottage]

My point is that evil and suffering are not the same thing.

The problem set is not called the problem of suffering, its called the problem of evil.

Natural events are not evil.

Sufferiing in and of itself, is not evil. Its often quite necessary to induce change - to push us outside of our comfort level.

Death, in and of itself is not evil is it? We all die don't we? So whey then is natural death evil? Why is it needless suffering if we know our time here is finite?

Obviously you disagree, but the sidestep here is avoiding support for your claim.

IMHO< natural events are not evil.

They are indeed PROMISED.

And even if you blame God for them .... they are still there. Even if you don;t believe in God.

If there was no suffering there would be no evil. The term‘evil’ is a condemnatory moral expression selectively directed at pain and suffering of every kind, or anything otherwise injurious or ruinous. And on that account as suffering cannot be necessary, since God the Creator is omnipotent and lies under no such necessity, the existence of suffering is intended and therefore evil.

Once again, The Problem of Evil exists because of an inconsistent triad: omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and the fact of suffering. Omnibenevolence and suffering cannot logically exist together: hence the contradiction stands.

 

[gree0232]

If there was no suffering there would be no evil. The term‘evil’ is a condemnatory moral expression selectively directed at pain and suffering of every kind, or anything otherwise injurious or ruinous. And on that account as suffering cannot be necessary, since God the Creator is omnipotent and lies under no such necessity, the existence of suffering is intended and therefore evil.

Once again, The Problem of Evil exists because of an inconsistent triad: omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and the fact of suffering. Omnibenevolence and suffering cannot logically exist together: hence the contradiction stands.

If there was no suffering there would be slavery.

If there was no suffering there would be nothing to push us outside our comfort zone.

If there were no suffering there would be neither good nor evil.

The problem of evil is little more than an illogical attempt to apply logical standard to an illogical premise.

God has shared with us his Plan of Salvation. A plan in which ALL but those who choose to know him and reject him anyway, the sole unpardonable sin, will return to him.

Does that strike you as evil because you will endure suffering for a small bit of time against eternity?

Its like saying the pain of a vaccination is 'evil'.

Really?

And with no God, you still have the problem of evil do you not? Why do bad things happen?

Why do some men rape women?

Why do some men murder other men?

Because they choose to.

And that seems to be in line with consequences of granting free will doesn't it?

Why is it that atheists blame God for these things, even as they accept the reality of the situation?

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

We have all heard this classic "argument" against theism. Usually presented in some form of the Epicurus Riddle:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Lot of people of the more atheistic persuasion are somehow convinced that this is somehow actually an argument against the existence of God. As if presenting evidence that evil exists in the world is proof that God does not exist. But to tell you the truth, this argument is weak and shallow.

The presence and existence of evil is not a problem for many theistic traditions out there, including some forms of Judaism, Islam, Christianity (especially the more mystical and Gnostic strains) and Hinduism amongst others.

Yes people, these religion have dealt with the problem of evil in various ways that offer satisfying answers to the practitioners of those religions. Some of us even except the presence of evil and God's responsibility for evil. But some of you continued to persist in this argument as if it is your trump card.

So ok. Let's have at it, you want to argue the problem of evil, then let us do so. But be aware it is no real argument against God but rather an argument against certain sectarian beliefs of various religious systems and nothing more than that.

I am prepare for a throw down.

Quieres unos chingasos?

I believe that God is probably neither willing nor able to prevent what we call "evil." (Although evil is really a subjective term because it varies from religion to religion, as well as from person to person.) I have always thought of Deity as a neutral being, neither good nor evil... neither benevolent nor malevolent. Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[LuisDantas]

The problem of evil is not an argument against gods. It is an argument against perfect loving gods. And a good one at that.

This.

Better yet, it is an argument against a certain approach to belief in God. Against relying too much on faith on his existence.

 

[cottage]

I just don't see the contradiction; why does the existence of suffering preclude God being good or loving?

It doesn’t! It only applies to the God of classical theism..

I don’t see why your particular God couldn’t be an anthropomorphic-type deity, in the same way that humans are good and loving. Again that would fit with reality, wouldn’t it?

 

[fantome profane]

If there was no suffering there would be slavery.

If there was no suffering there would be nothing to push us outside our comfort zone.

If there were no suffering there would be neither good nor evil.

The problem of evil is little more than an illogical attempt to apply logical standard to an illogical premise.

God has shared with us his Plan of Salvation. A plan in which ALL but those who choose to know him and reject him anyway, the sole unpardonable sin, will return to him.

Does that strike you as evil because you will endure suffering for a small bit of time against eternity?

Its like saying the pain of a vaccination is 'evil'.

Really?

And with no God, you still have the problem of evil do you not? Why do bad things happen?

Why do some men rape women?

Why do some men murder other men?

Because they choose to.

And that seems to be in line with consequences of granting free will doesn't it?

Why is it that atheists blame God for these things, even as they accept the reality of the situation?

Atheists don't blame "God" for anything. They see the logical contradiction.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I don’t see why your particular God couldn’t be an anthropomorphic-type deity, in the same way that humans are good and loving. Again that would fit with reality, wouldn’t it?

Ummm...because my God isn't an anthropomorphic deity...I mean it's not my fault my God isn't...why blame me?

 

[gree0232]

This.

Better yet, it is an argument against a certain approach to belief in God. Against relying too much on faith on his existence.

How so?

Because there is no 'test' for God. All cases for and against God are, by definition, inductive. They are based on probability, and as such, to be incorporated as a conclusion from which we base our daily decisions about (i.e. tp pray or not) requires faith.

So why is your faith that there is no God somehow more sound than faith in God?

And why is your belief that not being a slave is an act of evil correct?

 

[gree0232]

Atheists don't blame "God" for anything. They see the logical contradiction.

And yet here they are blaming God for 'evil'?

A logical contradiction that most certainly is ... exactly the point I was making.

And exactly the point that Cynthia, in the OP, was making. The problem of evil does not disprove God.

Indeed, when actually examined, it forces atheists to choose which is evil.

Enslavement to free us for suffering.

Or trusting us while knowing some will suffer.

That is exactly, according to scripture, the debate that caused the War in Heaven. and the fall of Satan, who advocated the former.

 

[LuisDantas]

How so?

Because there is no 'test' for God. All cases for and against God are, by definition, inductive. They are based on probability, and as such, to be incorporated as a conclusion from which we base our daily decisions about (i.e. tp pray or not) requires faith.

Not so for the Abrahamic God, which is demonstrably non-existent.

So why is your faith that there is no God somehow more sound than faith in God?

Because I can affort to be mistaken, for one. Perhaps even more important is that it does not demand others to pay the price for my beliefs.

And why is your belief that not being a slave is an act of evil correct?

What are you talking about here?

 

[EtuMalku]

Atheists are as guilty as theists . . . they both base their assumptions on faith.

 

[fantome profane]

And yet here they are blaming God for 'evil'?

No they are not. If you think they are you are misunderstanding.

 

[gree0232]

Not so for the Abrahamic God, which is demonstrably non-existent.




Because I can affort to be mistaken, for one. Perhaps even more important is that it does not demand others to pay the price for my beliefs.



What are you talking about here?

Really? Fascinating.

Please show me this test to prove my God false and me a brazen idiot.

And you pay no price for belief in God kiddo, I am not even sure where or how you arrived at that conclusion ... which is oddly the same reality for your opinion that I believe in God in open defiance of fact.

Lay that out fro me, please.

As for the later, please review the posts. Suffering must be or we are slaves.

 

[gree0232]

Atheists are as guilty as theists . . . they both base their assumptions on faith.

Yep.

Only inductive logic allows faith. Requires it until we reach deductive certainty.

Only one side of this debate eschews faith even as they use it.

 

[gree0232]

No they are not. If you think they are you are misunderstanding.

Well, that is EXACTY what atheist are baling God for in the Problem of Evil are they not?

And as, and having just asked this, what is it that causes bad things?

Why do men rape women?

Why do men murder men?

Because they choose to.

And since EVERY rebuttal to the Problem of Evil for literal millennia has pointed out the consequences of Free will, and the real cause of evil is man choosing to do wrong, then we are left with ...

atheists not wanting to concede a point?

What causes this evil?

And as God's Plan of Salvation both grants us free will and promises us suffering ... how exactly is your conclusion that man causes these things a rebuttal?

Right, you MUST blame God rather than man instead, even as you acknowledge that man causes these things ... which is exactly what God tells us. And has for millennia.

Please explain it rather than reject it because it clashes with your faith.