Why does God allow evil?

[Koldo]

Person B is horrified by the idea of the Matrix. Person B thus views a world as "Good" only if his senses relay to him Objective Truth. Thus he cannot be deceived and made to believe something is true if it is not.

Person B also requires a certain aspect of this world to be good. Namely, he wants the world to look a very specific way.

Person B hates being alone, thus we must make the world for him and at least one other real person, as he defines all types of deception, even deception to which he is unaware, as bad.

Person C is Person B's world-mate, to give him company. At the beginning, he has the same desires as B.

However, over time, the tastes of B and C change, to the point that C no longer likes this world. He views the specific designs B demands for a good world to be "bad" to him personally.

However, B and C have also now grown attached to each other, loving one another, and thus cannot be separated without causing "bad"

Both B and C also like the concept of Free Will, and view it as a necessary Good, so their likings cannot be changed or altered without creating a "bad" world.

How do you resolve their dilemma and give each a world where they have everything they want??

Person B ( and C ) wouldn't ever know he is on the "matrix". It is impossible to avoid being "deceived".

Person C either wouldn't ever change over time his taste to mismatch person B, or not be with Person B in the first place.

Also, it is worth mentioning that their wills, their likes, could be designed as to avoid any mismatch. This is actually another solution altogether to the initial problem. If everyone willed the world in harmony then no problems would exist.

The strange thing to me is you've got some sort of mythical notion of "perfection" that I don't believe in and use it to explain away how these things could be possible. You think everything can just be perfectly resolved because some perfect model of the universe exists. But then again there are some people out there, odd people granted, who view perfection itself as a bad thing, or who view imperfection as good. How do you account for them?? Do you take away their freedom to hold that view?? If you limit someone's subjective viewpoints is not your universe imperfect?? The problem is if your mythical "perfect-yet-subjective multiverse" is imperfect by anyone's definition it ceases to be perfect.

It is impossible to view perfection as a bad thing and imperfection as a better thing.
If perfection is bad that means it has flaws. If imperfection is better than perfection, it means imperfection has less flaws than perfection. This is contradictory. When people say these things what they actually mean is that what would usually be regarded as perfect by others ( or as a rule of thumb ) is not perfect to them ( at least at that point in time ).

Not quite what I'm trying to say, but I'll grant that I'm getting into some confusing metaphysical points so its understandable that confusion exists. I'm saying there is no "bad". "Bad" was not included in the world. There is no objective standard to "bad" and if you think there is I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to prove it.

Yet people define "good" and "bad" and make these things exist. Although they do not exist by default. You are in a world with no "bad", but you choose to view "bad" anyways.

Even if I were to accept that I can choose to no longer view something as bad, it is wrong to say I chose to view it as bad in the first place. It was not a choice. It was a natural consequence of an automatic judgment that resulted in a given labeling.

Regardless, what I am saying is that the problem of evil exists even if evil exists only subjectively. My position requires, by itself, no objective 'bad' nor 'good'. Evil exists even if only subjectively, even if it is dependant on people to perceive it as such, and as such the problem of evil remains, since omnipotence grants the power to eradicate evil even subjectively.

 

[Salek Atesh]

Person B ( and C ) wouldn't ever know he is on the "matrix". It is impossible to avoid being "deceived".

Someone doesn't have to know something is happening for them to view it as bad. If the deception exists, then by definition this is not a perfect world by that persons definition.

Oh sure, they'll live in ignorant bliss, but many, many people would likely be willing to argue that a world in which they live in ignorant bliss is "bad". So you're theoretical deceit-world fails in its attempt at the unattainable perfection.

Person C either wouldn't ever change over time his taste to mismatch person B, or not be with Person B in the first place.

Also, it is worth mentioning that their wills, their likes, could be designed as to avoid any mismatch. This is actually another solution altogether to the initial problem. If everyone willed the world in harmony then no problems would exist.

That model strips the concept of Free Will away. You are no longer able to evolve or make moral judgments on your own. Many posit that such freedom of thought rests upon their definition of "good", and thus does your theoretical universe continue to fail meeting the subjective standard of perfection for each being.

So we have either a world of lies, illusions, and falsehoods, or a world of no mental freedom and unchanging, rigid thought.

I don't know about you, but I personally don't like either of those. It fails my definition of good.

It is impossible to view perfection as a bad thing and imperfection as a better thing.
If perfection is bad that means it has flaws. If imperfection is better than perfection, it means imperfection has less flaws than perfection. This is contradictory. When people say these things what they actually mean is that what would usually be regarded as perfect by others ( or as a rule of thumb ) is not perfect to them ( at least at that point in time ).

Correct!! Imperfection and perfection are just as subjective concepts as anything else. Perfection for some is not the same as perfection for others. Now where do you get your objective standard for "perfection" from??

I personally do not believe in perfection until it can be shown to exist. Why do you believe in it??

Even if I were to accept that I can choose to no longer view something as bad, it is wrong to say I chose to view it as bad in the first place. It was not a choice. It was a natural consequence of an automatic judgment that resulted in a given labeling.

Really?? So you're saying there is an Objective Good/Bad dichotomy. Interesting. Now please prove its existence.

If this "automatic judgment" is not subjective, how can one person view it good to, say, gorge on food, while another person views that experience as bad??

Regardless, what I am saying is that the problem of evil exists even if evil exists only subjectively. My position requires, by itself, no objective 'bad' nor 'good'. Evil exists even if only subjectively, even if it is dependant on people to perceive it as such, and as such the problem of evil remains, since omnipotence grants the power to eradicate evil even subjectively.

Again... it's on you to prove it. You're solution to eliminating contradictory subjective "goods"/"evils" is to simply eliminate the freedom to view things as good or evil subjectively. Such elimination of Free Thought is thought by many to be "evil" in itself. Your only proposed model is worlds of falsehood and worlds of ridged thought, one where Truth is obfuscated or one where everyone is a mindless automaton. For the latter world, there is no purpose. No point in its making. For the first world, you have one world everyone thinks they like, but you rob them the opportunity to use reason or advance their knowledge by constructing for them worlds of lies. And if they ever decide that lies are bad in every context, then you're world is nothing but a "sham" at perfection, concealing the imperfection behind lies and deliberate falsehood.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I still don't get the free will argument. Why would a loving God have made up imperfect when he could have made us perfect? It's like a car manufacturer designing a car so that it keeps on breaking down and crashing - why would you do that?

 

[McBell]

I still don't get the free will argument. Why would a loving God have made up imperfect when he could have made us perfect? It's like a car manufacturer designing a car so that it keeps on breaking down and crashing - why would you do that?

The most common explanation I have heard is the god does not want mindless obedient slaves.
He wants people to choose him.

My thought is that god, if he exists and wants people to choose him, did a most terrible job at PR...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The most common explanation I have heard is the god does not want mindless obedient slaves. He wants people to choose him.

That doesn't sound convincing to me because a perfect being wouldn't be like a nice obedient slave. I'm nearly perfect and I'm not like that...

 

[McBell]

That doesn't sound convincing to me because a perfect being wouldn't be like a nice obedient slave. I'm nearly perfect and I'm not like that...

I was not trying to convince, merely presenting the most common (in my experience) explanation.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I was not trying to convince, merely presenting the most common (in my experience) explanation.

Yes, I know. I would like to hear a convincing argument from somebody on this point, but I never have.

 

[Salek Atesh]

I still don't get the free will argument. Why would a loving God have made up imperfect when he could have made us perfect? It's like a car manufacturer designing a car so that it keeps on breaking down and crashing - why would you do that?

Perfection and imperfection are illusory.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Perfection and imperfection are illusory.

I'm not sure what that means. Would you rather buy a car which works, or one which keeps breaking down?

 

[McBell]

I'm not sure what that means. Would you rather buy a car which works, or one which keeps breaking down?

I have a car that works, but is not perfect.

Perfect and imperfect are subjective.
What is perfect for one may well be the most imperfect for another.

 

[Salek Atesh]

I'm not sure what that means. Would you rather buy a car which works, or one which keeps breaking down?

All is subjective. Perhaps the functioning car is more expensive than the one that keeps breaking down. I'd imagine this "car which works" is unimaginably expensive considering it, currently, does not exist!! Currently every car is a car that "keeps breaking down." This "perfect car" does not exist for us in the real world, probably because "perfection" does not exist in the real world.

Or, you know, if you have a car that literally will never break down and is totally perfect, give me a price quote. Because proving my idea on "perfection as impossible" wrong would be fun, plus it would be great to never go to the shop again. Seriously, how much do you want for your magic car??

 

[TheInfiniteLight]

Question:

Why does God allow evil (or the "privation or absence of good")?

Answer:

"God allows evil to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom." - St. Thomas Aquinas

Wisdom allows for evil. Wisdom is the knowledge between good and evil. With wisdom one can reveal a person as they truly are. The earth is a place of wisdom; and being a place of wisdom, it is a revelation of the individual human being. Without the earth, the ignorance that a man is, cannot be revealed but through this process of living. Ignorance alone is no cause for judgment. However, when evil springs from ignorance then judgment can take place. Creation is a place of wisdom. The infinitesimal light is a place of truth. Wisdom and truth are not the same thing. Wisdom is the deficiency of the creator. Truth is the establishment of the Light.

 

[Koldo]

Someone doesn't have to know something is happening for them to view it as bad. If the deception exists, then by definition this is not a perfect world by that persons definition.

Oh sure, they'll live in ignorant bliss, but many, many people would likely be willing to argue that a world in which they live in ignorant bliss is "bad". So you're theoretical deceit-world fails in its attempt at the unattainable perfection.

It is a not a deception per se. It is not like there is some ultimate reality behind it, which is why I have been using these quotation marks. His existence is simply unique in a rather peculiar way compared to everyone else's. The same can be said about us right now, just in a different way.

That model strips the concept of Free Will away. You are no longer able to evolve or make moral judgments on your own. Many posit that such freedom of thought rests upon their definition of "good", and thus does your theoretical universe continue to fail meeting the subjective standard of perfection for each being.

So we have either a world of lies, illusions, and falsehoods, or a world of no mental freedom and unchanging, rigid thought.

I don't know about you, but I personally don't like either of those. It fails my definition of good.

What does it even mean to 'evolve'? You are certainly able to make moral judgments on your own on that world. Likewise, free will also exists on that world exactly like ours.

Correct!! Imperfection and perfection are just as subjective concepts as anything else. Perfection for some is not the same as perfection for others. Now where do you get your objective standard for "perfection" from??

I personally do not believe in perfection until it can be shown to exist. Why do you believe in it??

As I have been saying, it doesn't matter if our definitions of perfection don't match on practice. Far from that. It is completely irrelevant.

The reason to believe that perfection is possible is simply because it can be imagined. Do you lack the imagination for this?

Really?? So you're saying there is an Objective Good/Bad dichotomy. Interesting. Now please prove its existence.

If this "automatic judgment" is not subjective, how can one person view it good to, say, gorge on food, while another person views that experience as bad??

Where did I say anything about an objective good/bad dichotomy?
What I did say is: "Even if I were to accept that I can choose to no longer view something as bad, it is wrong to say I chose to view it as bad in the first place. It was not a choice. It was a natural consequence of an automatic judgment that resulted in a given labeling.".

Again... it's on you to prove it. You're solution to eliminating contradictory subjective "goods"/"evils" is to simply eliminate the freedom to view things as good or evil subjectively. Such elimination of Free Thought is thought by many to be "evil" in itself. Your only proposed model is worlds of falsehood and worlds of ridged thought, one where Truth is obfuscated or one where everyone is a mindless automaton. For the latter world, there is no purpose. No point in its making. For the first world, you have one world everyone thinks they like, but you rob them the opportunity to use reason or advance their knowledge by constructing for them worlds of lies. And if they ever decide that lies are bad in every context, then you're world is nothing but a "sham" at perfection, concealing the imperfection behind lies and deliberate falsehood.

To prove what exactly?
I will discuss each world on the quotes proper for that so as not to create multiple parallel conversations about the same topic.

 

[Salek Atesh]

What does it even mean to 'evolve'? You are certainly able to make moral judgments on your own on that world. Likewise, free will also exists on that world exactly like ours.

Evolve as in change one's opinion based on new information. And no, it does not exist the way you want it. In this universe, any train of thought that contradicts the notion that you find Nothing Bad is not possible to think. If you are not free to develop an opinion contrary to this "perfection", how can you claim free thought??

As I have been saying, it doesn't matter if our definitions of perfection don't match on practice. Far from that. It is completely irrelevant.

Yes it kind of does matter. If we are both free to make subjective opinions on what is best, then we are free to contradict one another. Contradiction is a logical impossibility, so no universe can match everyone's ideal of "perfection". Without freedom to dissent, we have no free thought. All thought becomes pre-ordained and robotic. So we are prevented from finding fault with the universe, or we have a universe that is not universally "perfect"

The reason to believe that perfection is possible is simply because it can be imagined. Do you lack the imagination for this?

"Perfection" changes by person to person. You, despite denying you possess an objective standard to this term, seem to be asserting that Objective Perfection is a thing that matches everyone's subjective opinions on what is Perfect. But if we grant everyone a subjective opinion, they can dissent and contradict one another, and once a single contradiction happens, this definition of "perfection" is unattainable. The solution is to eliminate all beings except for one, or to restrict free thought and the ability to develop contrary opinions from the general consensus. But if you must do that to achieve your perfection, then how is it perfect??

Where did I say anything about an objective good/bad dichotomy?

What I did say is: "Even if I were to accept that I can choose to no longer view something as bad, it is wrong to say I chose to view it as bad in the first place. It was not a choice. It was a natural consequence of an automatic judgment that resulted in a given labeling.".

Said it right in "It was a natural consequence of an automatic judgment that resulted in a given labeling" implying good and bad are "natural consequences" outside of subjective influence.

To prove what exactly?
I will discuss each world on the quotes proper for that so as not to create multiple parallel conversations about the same topic.

Prove "perfection," as an objective thing, exists. Your definition of Objective Perfection seems to be either "Is Subjectively Perfect For Everyone" or "No One Subjectively Finds Anything Bad". Either confirm one of two working definitions of Objective Perfection or clearly define your Objective Standard of Perfection. Then prove the existence of that Standard.

Personally, I don't think Ethics exist in a void, being pretty heavily a moral subjectivist, but for something to be Universally Perfect, than an Objective standard must exist, and positing that's existence necessitates proving it is real.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Because proving my idea on "perfection as impossible" wrong would be fun

But that isn't what you said. You said perfection and imperfection are illusionary. If we agree that perfection is impossible, then everything is imperfect to some degree. Of course it's subjective and relative, but there clearly are degrees of imperfection and it's certainly not illusory.

 

[Salek Atesh]

But that isn't what you said. You said perfection and imperfection are illusionary. If we agree that perfection is impossible, then everything is imperfect to some degree. Of course it's subjective and relative, but there clearly are degrees of imperfection and it's certainly not illusory.

Degrees of imperfection?? True, but they'll vary from person to person. As you said, its subjective. If perfection and imperfection are simply personal mental constructs varying from person to person, are they not illusory??

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If perfection and imperfection are simply personal mental constructs varying from person to person, are they not illusory??

No, they're value judgements. But for most people dropping a brick on your foot is more unpleasant than drinking a nice cup of tea.

 

[Salek Atesh]

No, they're value judgements. But for most people dropping a brick on your foot is more unpleasant than drinking a nice cup of tea.

Value judgments are subjective, lol. Some people are tea-hating masochists.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Some people are tea-hating masochists.

Yeah, there's probably a discussion board for that.

But seriously, I've lost track of the point of this discussion and how it relates to the OP.

 

[Salek Atesh]

Yeah, there's probably a discussion board for that.

But seriously, I've lost track of the point of this discussion and how it relates to the OP.

I think it spiraled from my initial response which was that Good and Evil are a subjectively invented dichotomy and thus to expect any world without Evil but with Good was foolish, deity or no.

And now am caught up in a debate with someone who asserts that a world where everyone has their own subjective notions if Good and Evil can still exist without the existence of Evil. Which seems like a logical impossibility to me, which is why I'm continuing to question in order to try to figure out what sort of logic he has coming to that conclusion. Heaven forbid I run into a worldview I can't understand.