These answers to the problem of evil are unsatisfactory to me

[McBell]

No, I don't have a objective definition because evil is subjective.

My apologies.
I got the impression you were objecting to my presenting definitions that revealed just how subjective the word evil is.

 

[Trailblazer]

My apologies.
I got the impression you were objecting to my presenting definitions that revealed just how subjective the word evil is.

No, quite the contrary. I thank you for presenting a more complete definition.

 

[PearlSeeker]

That is rather subjective. By that broad definition, anything I don't like could be considered evil.

There is the broad and the narrow concept of evil.

The broad concept encompasses all moral and natural evil (bad states of affairs which do not result from the intentions or negligence of humans - moral agents).

The narrow concept picks out only examples of the most horrible moral evil.

 

[PearlSeeker]

For example, the rodents on my property cause me discomfort and repulsion so they are evil to me, while none of the other wild animals on my property are evil since they don't cause me discomfort or repulsion. The raccoons caused harm to my decks but I don't consider them evil. The squirrels steal the bird food but I don't consider them evil, but when rodents steal the bird food I consider them evil.

So do you see how evil is subjective?

Animals are not moral agents. They can't be considered evil. Even the rodents that you don't like. The harm or suffering they cause can be considered evil (in the broad sense).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God is not a moral agent. Only humans are moral agents.

Cool if that is how you define your god.
But then this god also can't be associated with benevolence, justice, love or anything like that.

A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions.

So in your belief, god does not have the ability to discern right from wrong?
Interesting.

By expecting people to act as moral agents, we hold people accountable for the harm they cause others.

I'ld rather say that we hold people accountable BECAUSE they are able to discern right from wrong.
We don't hold agents accountable when they lack that ability, because they lack that ability.
Having that ability is a prerequisite for accountability.

Do YOU know more than God about how the world should have been created?
Are you all-knowing or all-wise?

I'm not. And neither is the god you believe in apparently, since you just said that this god lacks the ability to discern right from wrong.
An all-knowing, all-wise entity would be able to do so.

God is not a person. To compare God to a person and expect God to act like a person is illogical, it is the fallacy of false equivalence.

Tell it to the theists who believe god is a person.
I don't believe in any gods, persons or otherwise.
So whenever I talk about gods, I'm assuming the god-concepts of the people I speak with.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think you are getting onto slippery ground here. The definition of "moral agent" you give rests on two principles, the ability to discern right from wrong and the ability to be held accountable. Hopefully we can agree that God can discern right from wrong, otherwise what's he doing giving us rules to regulate our behavior? That leaves accountability.

First, that standard is really a legal one. If a person is judged to be insane for example, we don't prosecute him/her for whatever crimes are committed. God does know right from wrong, so according to this rule if we could drag God into a courtroom he could be charged with whatever. Obviously we can't get God into a courtroom, so how does that affect his moral agency? If this was a valid criterion, anyone who escaped arrest would not be considered a moral agent and thus immune from prosecution. I hope you see how silly that would be.

So God is a moral agent, or at least doesn't escape judgement by your argument. Let's see if there are other ways he gets off the hook.

I'm getting a big "might makes right" vibe here.
Kim Jung Un can't be dragged to court by his citizens either, being the all-powerful dictator that he is.
So in his country, he has no accountability either.

So according to this logic, Kim Jung Un is not a moral agent.

 

[PearlSeeker]

The problem of evil means that the existence of evil is a problem for the existence of omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. Logically evil, omnipotence and omnibenevolence cannot coexist. This concerns both natural and moral evil.

Natural evil - because God could have designed a world without natural evil or God could at least have helped us to combat it.

Moral evil - why doesn't God intervene to prevent it?

 

[Alien826]

I'm getting a big "might makes right" vibe here.
Kim Jung Un can't be dragged to court by his citizens either, being the all-powerful dictator that he is.
So in his country, he has no accountability either.

So according to this logic, Kim Jung Un is not a moral agent.

That's what I was saying. I was trying to rebut the argument that God is not a moral agent because he can't be held accountable, using our legal rules as an analogy. True, neither God (ever) or Kim (currently) can be indicted legally or punished for their actions, but that doesn't mean they are not moral agents. As you correctly suggest, that argument would apply to anyone that can't be physically reached.

Many theists do indeed use "might means right" when referring to God, though they don't always admit to it. Look up Divine Command Theory. Here's a brief definition from Wiki.

Divine command theory is a meta-ethical theory which proposes that an action's status as morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Cool if that is how you define your god.
But then this god also can't be associated with benevolence, justice, love or anything like that.

Why not? God does not have to be human in order to be associated with qualities that humans have. After all, humans can have those qualities because they are made in the image of God, so those qualities like benevolence, justice, and love are attributes of God that first came from God.

So in your belief, god does not have the ability to discern right from wrong?
Interesting.

In my belief, God does not have to 'discern' right from wrong Since God is all-knowing, God simply KNOWS what is right and what is wrong human behavior.

I'ld rather say that we hold people accountable BECAUSE they are able to discern right from wrong.
We don't hold agents accountable when they lack that ability, because they lack that ability.
Having that ability is a prerequisite for accountability.

Again, God knows what is right and wrong because God is all-knowing, but that does not mean God is accountable to humans.

God is not accountable to anyone because God is over all of creation.

Humans have the ability to discern right from wrong so they are accountable to each other as part of society, and they are accountable to God if they believe in that kind of God.

I'm not. And neither is the god you believe in apparently, since you just said that this god lacks the ability to discern right from wrong.
An all-knowing, all-wise entity would be able to do so.

I did not say that God lacks the ability to discern right from wrong.
I said that God does not have to 'discern' that since God knows that as part of His nature since God is all-knowing.

Tell it to the theists who believe god is a person.
I don't believe in any gods, persons or otherwise.
So whenever I talk about gods, I'm assuming the god-concepts of the people I speak with.

I know you don't believe in God, but when you 'refer to God' and compare God to a person and expect God to act like a person that is illogical.

 

[Trailblazer]

Many theists do indeed use "might means right" when referring to God

Might does not make right but omniscience and infallibility make right.

 

[Alien826]

God does not have to 'discern' right from wrong in Himself because God is all-knowing, so God knows what is right and wrong by His nature.
God does not have right and wrong behavior because God has no behavior. Only humans and animals have behavior.
God sets the standards for human behavior and then judges human behavior as right or wrong.

This brings up Euthyphro's Dilemma which was posed by Plato, many years ago. Here's a Wiki definition.

The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" Although it was originally applied to the ancient Greek pantheon, the dilemma has implications for modern monotheistic religions.

Putting it another way, does God do good because it's good or because he says it's good. It's a very real dilemma, because if he does it because it's good there's something that God has to obey (the moral code) and is thus not all powerful, and if it's because he says it is it makes morality arbitrary, because God could say anything (like rape) was good and it would be.

Again, God is not a moral agent because God is not a human being.

I don't see why that exempts God. We say people and animals are not moral agents because they are incapable of discerning right and wrong, not because moral agency only applies to humans.

A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions. Moral agents have a moral responsibility not to cause unjustified harm.

And so would God if he is a moral agent, which I feel he has to be.

By expecting people to act as moral agents, we hold people accountable for the harm they cause others.

Moral Agent - Ethics Unwrapped

A Moral Agent is a person who can be held accountable for his or her actions because he or she has the ability to tell right from wrong.

ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu

God escapes judgement by humans because God is the judge of humans.
Anyone can judge God if they want to but it won't get them anywhere.

A human judge is appointed, and gets authority from human law. Where does God's authority come from? There's no heavenly Supreme Court to appeal to. Your answer is that it all comes from power. He's more powerful and we can't do anything about it. That doesn't make it good or morally correct, though God may be good.

We are not totally powerless. We can make a judgment based on human understanding and decide to either worship or not worship.

God does not need to get off the hook because God is not on anyone's hook except in their minds.
It is so silly to judge a being that is so far above us. Does an [ant?] judge a human?

No, but it leaves us in a difficult position, which is being told that we must obey God under penalty of eternal punishment, yet having no reliable way to to determine if the actions we are commanded to do are morally correct.

We can go by what we see, but we also have scriptures to go by, although IMO they do a **** poor job of explaining the purpose of suffering.

I was with you up to this point and the analogy somewhat applies regarding different species, but it fails because God is not a species.
It is not fair for us to judge God by our standards because God is so far above us, and we cannot know what God knows.

Another reason that your analogy fails is because (a) God does not behave, and (b) God is not in the earth realm. God is at home, wherever that is.

God does not behave at all since behavior is a characteristic of humans and animals. God wills things to happen and then they happen according to God's will, but we can never know what those things are unless they are recorded in scriptures. I don't mean the OT since I believe that is merely a human rendition of God, nothing God actually did, since God doesn't do things, God wills things.

I have already said that I feel God can be seen as a species, that is not human but alive and sentient.

How can God not behave? How did he create the universe without behaving? Is willing (if God does some kind of creation by mental power) a behavior? I mean if he does something, even think, he does something (behaves).

 

[Alien826]

I'm not. And neither is the god you believe in apparently, since you just said that this god lacks the ability to discern right from wrong.
An all-knowing, all-wise entity would be able to do so.

From a previous answer, I don't think she believes God discerns right and wrong. Instead he creates it by deciding what it is. Which is a pretty frightening idea, for those that believe it.

Personally I'm sticking with atheism. If I get struck by lightning it's unfortunate, but I don't have to worry about some superior being having done it deliberately.

 

[Trailblazer]

Putting it another way, does God do good because it's good or because he says it's good. It's a very real dilemma, because if he does it because it's good there's something that God has to obey (the moral code) and is thus not all powerful, and if it's because he says it is it makes morality arbitrary, because God could say anything (like rape) was good and it would be.

According to my beliefs, God does good because God is good. God does not say He is good, although the Messengers of God such as Jesus and Baha'u'llah say that God is good, which is why I and others believe that God is good.

According to my beliefs, God sets the standards for human morality, but God does not have to obey a moral code because God is all-good by His nature. An all-good God cannot do anything bad, even if some humans perceive what they believe God does as bad.

God could say that anything (like rape or murder) are good, but God does not say that things that are against secular laws are good.

I don't see why that exempts God. We say people and animals are not moral agents because they are incapable of discerning right and wrong, not because moral agency only applies to humans.

God does not have to 'discern' right from wrong because God already knows what is right and wrong by virtue if being all-knowing.
Only humans have the ability and the responsibility to discern right from wrong and that is why only humans are moral agents.

And so would God if he is a moral agent, which I feel he has to be.

Again, a moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions. Moral agents have a moral responsibility not to cause unjustified harm. God cannot cause harm because God does not have behaviors. I think that people get confused because the OT has anthropomorphized God and made it look like God is a human.

A human judge is appointed, and gets authority from human law. Where does God's authority come from? There's no heavenly Supreme Court to appeal to. Your answer is that it all comes from power. He's more powerful and we can't do anything about it. That doesn't make it good or morally correct, though God may be good.

While it is true that God is all-powerful so we can't do anything about it, whatever it is, God's authority does not come from His power.
God's authority comes from His status as God, according to the scriptures I believe in.

We are not totally powerless. We can make a judgment based on human understanding and decide to either worship or not worship.

That's true, but I think that decision should be based upon who God really is and what God actually does and does not do, not upon what we think God is doing or not doing, or what we think God should be doing that He is not doing.

No, but it leaves us in a difficult position, which is being told that we must obey God under penalty of eternal punishment, yet having no reliable way to to determine if the actions we are commanded to do are morally correct.

Although I think it is our best interest to obey God's laws that come via the Messenger of God, I do not believe that we must obey God under penalty of eternal punishment. I think we need to use our best judgment to determine if the actions we are commanded to do are morally correct. I do not know of any laws in Baha'u'llah's Book of Laws that I find immoral and although I might question why some of them are necessary I try to obey the laws that apply to morality.

I have already said that I feel God can be seen as a species, that is not human but alive and sentient.

God is not a species because a species is biological, defined as a group of organisms that can reproduce naturally with one another and create fertile offspring.

According to my beliefs, God is alive and sentient, but not in the same way as humans.

"While the Baháʼí writings teach of a personal god who is a being with a personality (including the capacity to reason and to feel love), they clearly state that this does not imply a human or physical form.[2] Shoghi Effendi writes:

What is meant by personal God is a God Who is conscious of His creation, Who has a Mind, a Will, a Purpose, and not, as many scientists and materialists believe, an unconscious and determined force operating in the universe. Such conception of the Divine Being, as the Supreme and ever present Reality in the world, is not anthropomorphic, for it transcends all human limitations and forms, and does by no means attempt to define the essence of Divinity which is obviously beyond any human comprehension. To say that God is a personal Reality does not mean that He has a physical form, or does in any way resemble a human being. To entertain such belief would be sheer blasphemy.[15][16] "

God in the Baháʼí Faith - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How can God not behave? How did he create the universe without behaving? Is willing (if God does some kind of creation by mental power) a behavior? I mean if he does something, even think, he does something (behaves).

I think we are splitting hairs. If God wills something into existence is that a behavior?
You can think of it as a behavior but it is really not a behavior since only humans and animals have behaviors.

behave

1. act or conduct oneself in a specified way, especially toward others.
2. conduct oneself in accordance with the accepted norms of a society or group.

Oxford Languages and Google - English | Oxford Languages

Google’s English dictionary is provided by Oxford Languages. Oxford Languages is the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages.

languages.oup.com

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't see why that exempts God..

Well I do.

Take the commandment "thou shall not commit murder" .. G-d cannot be murdered, so it is
quite obviously for our benefit.

Furthermore, G-d gives life (birth), and takes life (death), so it is absurd to suggest that G-d
should only give life but not take it .. we'd all be in a right mess.

..and of course .. dead or alive refers to this worldly life, and not to a hidden dimension which
belongs to G-d.

G-d gave us the laws for our benefit .. so that we may prosper, and live in peace.

 

[Trailblazer]

Furthermore, G-d gives life (birth), and takes life (death), so it is absurd to suggest that G-d
should only give life but not take it .. we'd all be in a right mess.

Absurd as it is, there are Christians right on this forum who claim that as the end goal -- that there be no more physical death on earth.
They base that belief on the following verses.

Revelation 21:4
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away.

1 Corinthians 15:26
The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death,

 

[muhammad_isa]

Absurd as it is, there are Christians right on this forum who claim that as the end goal..

Yes, I know .. "Highly illogical, Captain"

 

[YellowFeather]

How do you explain the existence of evil, despite God being almighty, and all knowing, and perfect love?

How do you forum posters explain that evil exists despite God being, all powerful, all knowing and all love? Why does God permit or create evil? Or did God not want it for anything? Is evil and illusion? Why did Jesus create the situation of the crucifixion and go through that? Why does the...

www.christianforums.com

Before man disobeyed God, Man only knew righteous, everything around him was holy. When man disobeyed God and ate from the tree of life, the mind then had the knowledge of good and evil. Meaning man had the knowledge of knowing what was wrong to do. Then God had to put man to the full test to let him understand that God was the one to be obeyed. Only them that fall away from evil and come back to God and obey God will be obeyed. We live in a world of temptations It is up to the individual to say NO to them and follow God not the world. Luke 8:13 They on the rock are which , when they hear receive the word of joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of NO TEMPTATION fall away.

 

[YellowFeather]

Absurd as it is, there are Christians right on this forum who claim that as the end goal -- that there be no more physical death on earth.
They base that belief on the following verses.

Revelation 21:4
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away.

1 Corinthians 15:26
The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death,

Only a few will be saved, that is those who have truely repented and changed their way of life to God's standard of living and no longer live for the way of the world. God only wants those who will follow his word and leave evil behind. If you cannot obey God now then you will not obey God ever. We are on a trial bases now. It is up to the individual to seek God and obey him now. Luke 13:23 Then said unto , Jesus are there be a few that be saved? 24 Jesus said Strive to enter in at the strait gate; from many I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able to.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If you cannot obey God now then you will not obey God ever..

Uhhh .. no !

You do not know who will be successful in the next life, and who will fail.

It may be that you will worship G-d all your life, but at the last few weeks of it, you will curse G-d
and turn away.
..or it may be that a person will have no care for righteousness all of their life, but at the last few weeks of it, they will sincerely repent and it will be accepted.

Remember the story of the prodigal son?

This world is an illusion, and the most important thing is our intention .. only G-d knows if
our deeds are sincerely for Him, or for some worldly reason.

 

[Trailblazer]

Only a few will be saved, that is those who have truely repented and changed their way of life to God's standard of living and no longer live for the way of the world. God only wants those who will follow his word and leave evil behind. If you cannot obey God now then you will not obey God ever. We are on a trial bases now. It is up to the individual to seek God and obey him now. Luke 13:23 Then said unto , Jesus are there be a few that be saved? 24 Jesus said Strive to enter in at the strait gate; from many I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able to.

Repented from what? Saved from what?

What does sin mean to you? According to my beliefs, sin is disobedience to God, but if we follow God's standard of living and no longer live for the way of the world we would be obedient to God. But since nobody is perfect we all sin to some degree, but God is the Ever-Forgiving so God can forgive sins.

The Baháʼí Faith teaches that sin is disobedience to God and that sinning separates a person from God. Examples of sins in the Baháʼí Faith include anger, jealousy, hypocrisy, prejudice, and failure to follow the Baháʼí laws.

Baháʼí views on sin - Wikipedia