Why does God allow evil?

[Koldo]

"Suffering" is a bad state "Pleasure" is a good state. Without suffering, there would just be greater and lesser degrees of "Pleasure".

This statement is not true. It is possible to exist just one degree of pleasure experienced by us.

We'd associate the lesser pleasures as a bad thing, as it would be seen by us as subjective, interpretive beings that it was better to have more pleasure, and the state of less pleasure would be a grave injustice. Without the context of suffering, lesser states of pleasure become just as abominable as that suffering in our eyes, as those lesser states are the worst imaginable states.

The man who spends his whole life outdoors in a tundra, when taken into a room-temperature environment, will describe it as hot. Likewise the man who knows no suffering will complain about states of pleasure if they are lesser in degree to that which he is accustomed.

It still doesn't explain why god would have chosen this world rather than the alternative where only degrees of pleasure exist.

 

[Salek Atesh]

OK, suffering and pleasure are relative terms but how does that answer the question?

Why did God "allow" the Holocaust? Why did God "allow" the recent massacre of school children in Pakistan?

When did I ever posit answers to your questions?? Or even quote your questions??

 

[Koldo]

It would not be possible to experience compassion if there were no suffering. Those who see only suffering in the world and nothing else are pessimistic. That's your choice. But there is another way of looking at the world.

And what makes compassion inherently good to the point that it would justify suffering?
That appears to be an ungranted assumption on your part.

 

[allfoak]

Evil is a concept of man.

 

[Salek Atesh]

This statement is not true. It is possible to exist just one degree of pleasure experienced by us.

No. Then pleasure is default, and we have no conception of it. We do not recognize it as pleasurable, good, or bad. It is not something even noticed by us in that case. If we were blind (one degree of darkness), we would not have words for dark or light. We would not have that concept.

It still doesn't explain why god would have chosen this world rather than the alternative where only degrees of pleasure exist.

Why not?? Everything is just as good or bad as anything else. What we call Good or Bad is relative to our own experiences, and wherever we are, whatever world we are born in, there will still be something we view as almost unimaginably bad and evil, and a high contrasting standard of good.

You seem to be debating me as if I was trying to prove the existence of a God or something. I'm not interested in that debate. I'm a Taoish moral relativist here to answer the question by pointing out that "evil" and "good" must always exist, or neither of them will exist, and no degree of trying to eliminate "evil" from a universe would work. It will only cause people to redefine things as evil to support the dichotomy in the first place.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

When did I ever posit answers to your questions??

Maybe somebody else could answer them.

Why did God "allow" the Holocaust? Why did God "allow" the recent massacre of school children in Pakistan?

 

[Gambit]

But isn't this what all bad things are, elements in life that exhibit a lack of being good?

I have already explained to you that bad and evil are synonymous terms.

Explain the "absence of good" side of the equation.

Darkness is the absence of light.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

And what makes compassion inherently good to the point that it would justify suffering?

It looks like a red herring to me.

 

[Skwim]

I have already explained to you that bad and evil are synonymous terms.
Darkness is the absence of light.

Have it your way in your world then.

The rest of us will live with the recognition that evil is just one of the many forms of bad.

 

[allfoak]

Maybe this will help.

Rom. 8: 18-23
18 I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us.
19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God;
20 for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope
21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now;
23 and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.

 

[Skwim]

Maybe this will help.

Rom. 8: 18-23
18 I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us.
19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God;
20 for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope
21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now;
23 and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.

Care to explain in simple English, and in as few words as possible?

 

[Koldo]

No. Then pleasure is default, and we have no conception of it. We do not recognize it as pleasurable, good, or bad. It is not something even noticed by us in that case. If we were blind (one degree of darkness), we would not have words for dark or light. We would not have that concept.

Pleasure would exist even if it were our default state.
We don't need to recognize pleasure as something good to experience it.

Why not?? Everything is just as good or bad as anything else. What we call Good or Bad is relative to our own experiences, and wherever we are, whatever world we are born in, there will still be something we view as almost unimaginably bad and evil, and a high contrasting standard of good.

What happens to omnibenevolence?
What does this word mean if everything is just as good or bad as anything else?

You seem to be debating me as if I was trying to prove the existence of a God or something. I'm not interested in that debate. I'm a Taoish moral relativist here to answer the question by pointing out that "evil" and "good" must always exist, or neither of them will exist, and no degree of trying to eliminate "evil" from a universe would work. It will only cause people to redefine things as evil to support the dichotomy in the first place.

The context of this topic is the 'problem of evil' which is defined by the contradiction between an omnimax god and the existence of evil. So it is only natural that I will ask you every now and then, depending on the circumstances, how your answer actually provides a proper reply to the problem in question. Because that is what you were, at least apparently, trying to do: to provide a proper answer to the problem. If, however, you are not interested on this debate, you are free to search for another topic that may better suit your needs.

 

[Koldo]

Evil is a concept of man.

Wouldn't the same apply to 'good'?

 

[allfoak]

Care to explain in simple English, and in as few words as possible?

God had sex with Mother Earth.
The Child is now the responsibility of Mother Earth until it is born and weaned and then returns to the Father.

 

[allfoak]

Wouldn't the same apply to 'good'?

Yes.

If you can come up with one word that describes them both then you may be on to something.

 

[Koldo]

Yes.

If you can come up with one word that describes them both then you may be on to something.

If the same applies to 'good' then this doesn't solve the problem of evil.

 

[allfoak]

If the same applies to 'good' then this doesn't solve the problem of evil.

You are correct.
Since Evil is nothing more than a human concept, then we should be able to define it and then eradicate it our selves.
Shall we?

I say there is no need to define either one.
The balance between good and evil is found in the heart of every human being.
Finding this balance is our purpose.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Wouldn't the same apply to 'good'?

And to "God"?

 

[Koldo]

And to "God"?

By consequence, yes.

 

[Koldo]

You are correct.
Since Evil is nothing more than a human concept, then we should be able to define it and then eradicate it our selves.
Shall we?

I say there is no need to define either one.
The balance between good and evil is found in the heart of every human being.
Finding this balance is our purpose.

If you are not defining either, how do you even know what you are talking about?