Why do bad things happen to good people?

[BruceDLimber]

God must have either created evil or created the capacity for evil. I guess you could say he did this in giving us moral choices.

Not if we follow His commands and don't do evil things.

Are you trying to suggest that free will has no meaning outside of moral choices?

I said no such thing.

A better system? How about a world that has no pain, suffering, evil etc. Sounds good to me

Me, too.

Which is why we're working on it.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[BruceDLimber]

My overall point was that we find ourselves at some midpoint on a scale of capability. We can commit many evil acts, but there are also many evil acts that we can't commit.

Unsurprising: it's called "life."

If you're going to argue that we can't be constrained from doing evil acts because it would take away our free will, . . .

Fortunately, I posited no such thing.

If the properties of the universe or humanity were slightly different, it's conceivable that a gun wouldn't work as a weapon. In this hypothetical world, would still have free will?

Ignoring for the nonce that it's only a hypothetical, I see no obvious reason why we wouldn't (though if this is a setup for a trick follow-up, then cancel this answer; and I decline to say).

Heh - I'm not complaining that people can't kill me with their thoughts; I'm just pointing out that the fact that we can conceive of more evil than we can actually do tells us that your argument is flawed.

Not so, because that in no way influences my points.

But tell you what: if evil is merely the absence of good as cold is merely the absence of heat, then like temperature, evil must have an "absolute zero"; once you take away all the good - once you have a complete absence of it - then there's no more good to remove, and we can't get any more evil.

If you read the above carefully, you'll discover that you in fact screwed it up by using the wrong term at one point.

Next question: is humanity entirely good?

As created, yes! To quote the Baha'i scriptures:

[CCXXII "Man is the supreme Talisman. Lack of a proper education hath, however, deprived him of that which he doth inherently possess. Through a word proceeding out of the mouth of God he was called into being; by one word more he was guided to recognize the Source of his education; by yet another word his station and destiny were safeguarded. The Great Being saith: Regard man as a mine rich in gems of inestimable value. Education can, alone, cause it to reveal its treasures, and enable mankind to benefit therefrom."
"Gleanings," pp. 259-260

After that, it depends on each of us.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not if we follow His commands and don't do evil things.

But I thought you said that there is no "evil", only a lack of good.

Humans aren't perfect; our actions aren't perfect. Nothing we do is going to be perfectly good on any scale. If "evil" just means "less than perfectly good", then doesn't this mean that we can't help but do evil things? By that standard, everything we do is evil to some degree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Unsurprising: it's called "life."

A label is not an explanation. Other conceivable arrangements would be called "life" as well.

Fortunately, I posited no such thing.

Then what are you arguing?

Ignoring for the nonce that it's only a hypothetical, I see no obvious reason why we wouldn't (though if this is a setup for a trick follow-up, then cancel this answer; and I decline to say).

It's not a trick.

I just wanted confirmation from you: so you do agree if we were physically prevented from committing evil acts to a slightly higher degree than today, we would still have free will?

Why didn't God create the universe that way, then? If it would have slightly fewer evil acts and slightly less suffering, but equal in all other respects, then it would be slightly better than the universe we have. This implies that the universe is an imperfect creation at least to a small degree.

Do perfect beings create imperfect creations?

Not so, because that in no way influences my points.

Even if it doesn't influence your mindset, it does influence the validity of what you're arguing.

If you read the above carefully, you'll discover that you in fact screwed it up by using the wrong term at one point.

Which term?

As created, yes! To quote the Baha'i scriptures:

Okay - so we start out entirely good. This implies that we will only deviate from being entirely good if we're influenced by something outside us that is less than entirely good.

So what was it? What got the ball rolling?

What I'm getting at is something like the First Cause argument, but from a different perspective: if all effects can be traced back to God the "first cause", then God is the one who set in motion everything that's happened since Creation. This includes not only the good things, but also the bad.

If you're saying that the bad came from someone other than God, then you're implying that there's a source for at least part of Creation that can't be traced back to God.

 

[9Westy9]

Not if we follow His commands and don't do evil things.

but we still have the capacity to disobey

I said no such thing.

You did however say

"I don't see what point said free will would have if, as you describe, we had free will but were somehow prevented from making choices."

I never said we wouldn't have choices, only that we wouldn't have moral choices.

Me, too.

Which is why we're working on it.

Peace,

Bruce

Seems we finally agree on something .

Westy

 

[BruceDLimber]

Not if we follow His commands and don't do evil things.

But I thought you said that there is no "evil", only a lack of good.

OK:

Not if we follow His commands and do only good things.

Happy now?

Bruce

 

[BruceDLimber]

(I misspoke, for the record, when I said you'd misstated something earlier. That was my own error due to a mistaken reading, so please ignore that comment. Sorry about that.)

[Do you] agree if we were physically prevented from committing evil acts to a slightly higher degree than today, we would still have free will?

Probably, but this is only a hypothetical anyway.

Why didn't God create the universe that way, then?

An excellent question!

I suggest you ask Him when you eventually see Him.

If you're saying that the bad came from someone other than God, then you're implying that there's a source for at least part of Creation that can't be traced back to God.

Except that I never said that.

I said--and the quote I posted affirmed--that evil isn't an actual "thing" in its own right, but only the relative ABSENCE of good, analagous to dark being merely absence of light (rather than a "thing").

So evil was never a "part of Creation" but rather a later human act caused by our own missteps.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[BruceDLimber]

but we still have the capacity to disobey.

Nor did I ever claim otherwise. . . .

Peace,

Bruce

 

[9Westy9]

Nor did I ever claim otherwise. . . .

Peace,

Bruce

a capacity given by whom?

 

[quickdraw]

If there's a god, I don't see any evidence that the plight of human beings are of any concern to this entity.

I guess it depends on what one believes about God or who they believe is God. If it is the God of the bible, then it is clear what he did for human beings.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

If there is Evil, then an omniscient, omnipotent "God" must by definition will it to be so.

To suggest that "God" does not intervene (whether because of free will or to test our faith or any other reason) suggests that divine intervention (vis-a-vis miracles) are in fact evidence that "God" does not exist (or conversely that you proposition that "God" does not intervene must be evidence that "God" does not exist).


To suggest that "God" does intervene (again in the miraculous fashion) and is omnibenevolent, then either Evil happening is mere illusion and nothing bad that happens is actually Evil OR absence of miracles in modern times are in fact evidence that "God" does not exist. A skeptical and observant person would also note that the "quality" of miracles in modern times has dropped off considerably; statues crying is a far cry from touching someone and blindness or leprosy disappearing instantly.


It is important to determine which it is: Does "God" intervene? Does "God" not intervene?

MTF

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Bad things happen to good people because the laws of nature are morally neutral. There is really no such thing as a thing which is intrinsically good or evil they are only human concepts. People read those concepts into creatures of nature and deem venomous snakes as evil and even used as tthe preconisation of the Devil which is nonsense and pretty flowers white doves are “good” which is also a lot nonsense. But there is a perfectly natural reason why some snakes are venomous as it aids in defence and subduing prey and pretty flowers just look pretty to optimize pollination and not to decorate weddings etc.

 

[BruceDLimber]

a capacity given by whom?

Ever hear of free will--which, please note, in no way requires anyone to misbehave?

Bruce

 

[9Westy9]

Ever hear of free will--which, please note, in no way requires anyone to misbehave?

Bruce

We've already been through this.

 

[BruceDLimber]

We've already been through this.

Then why was the question repeated?


Bruce

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK:

Not if we follow His commands and do only good things.

Happy now?

Bruce

Not really, because you didn't address my point.

If evil is defined as simply "an absence of good", then any action that is less than perfect is evil to some degree. IOW, when you say that we should "do only good things", you're effectively saying that we should be perfect.

Are human beings perfect? Are they even capable of perfection?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

(I misspoke, for the record, when I said you'd misstated something earlier. That was my own error due to a mistaken reading, so please ignore that comment. Sorry about that.)

Okay. No worries. Thanks.

Probably, but this is only a hypothetical anyway.

That doesn't invalidate the point, though: God could have created a universe with less suffering in it while still preserving free will to the extent it's preserved in the universe we have.

An excellent question!

I suggest you ask Him when you eventually see Him.

But I'm asking you. Your argument is, basically, that the universe we see around us was created the way it was in order to accomplish certain purposes. I'd like to know how you reconcile the fact that you apparently still maintain that God is seeking to acheive these purposes (i.e. minimizing suffering and evil while still maintaining free will, which you are still arguing God is trying to do, right?) with the fact that the universe we see before us seems to do a worse job at these purposes than other conceivable universes.

If you want to just throw in the towel and say that you don't have good reasons to believe that God is actually interested in the things you say he is, that's fine, but if that's the case, I'd like to hear it from you instead of just inferring it.

Except that I never said that.

I said--and the quote I posted affirmed--that evil isn't an actual "thing" in its own right, but only the relative ABSENCE of good, analagous to dark being merely absence of light (rather than a "thing").

So evil was never a "part of Creation" but rather a later human act caused by our own missteps.

Peace,

Bruce

In that case, evil would be an inescapable result.

To use your light analogy, if you turn a light on in a room, the luminance (i.e. the brightness experienced from the light) decreases with distance from the source of the light. Only so many photons are produced by a light source, so the larger the space they are projected into, the more spread out they will be. When you decide that you're going to illuminate a space with a light source, even if you have a "perfect" light source, you have implicitly decided that the room itself will be something less than perfectly bright.

 

[Willamena]

That doesn't invalidate the point, though: God could have created a universe with less suffering in it while still preserving free will to the extent it's preserved in the universe we have.

The whole argument is silly: we are capable of creating a world with less suffering in it, we don't need "God" for that. And so we don't need to blame "God" for that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The whole argument is silly: we are capable of creating a world with less suffering in it, we don't need "God" for that.

I agree.

And so we don't need to blame "God" for that.

It's not a matter of blaming God; it's a matter of reconciling claims about the nature of God with the actual state of the universe.

I'm not saying that God should do this or that; I'm saying that if a person is going to claim that God is doing this or that but the evidence speaks against it, then the person has a problem with their claim that they need to address.

 

[Willamena]

I agree.


It's not a matter of blaming God; it's a matter of reconciling claims about the nature of God with the actual state of the universe.

I'm not saying that God should do this or that; I'm saying that if a person is going to claim that God is doing this or that but the evidence speaks against it, then the person has a problem with their claim that they need to address.

I see. The problem is that "a world with less suffering" doesn't describe a possible world, but this (actual) one.