Why does God allow evil?

[Koldo]

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??

You could have all the information you could possibly acquire on that world from the very start.
I am not sure what your other contention is. Do you hold the libertarian view of free will?
Because that's a debate in itself. I hold the compatibilist view. Do you comprehend what I am saying?

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"

"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??

( I am fairly certain you hold the libertarian view by now, but let's continue. )

I have been explaining ways to make these contradictions fit. So I am not going to talk about it at this point. Suffices to say my methods are not all there is to it. They are just solutions I have come up with. And just a couple of them while at that.

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.

On that sense, yes. Opinions over morality are not completely groundless. They don't come into existence from a void. They are developed through our nature and nurture ( to put it simple ).

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.

I am not sure why I would need to prove anything regarding perfection. Could you explain why you see this need? I am not sure how it relates to my point.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I think a question like "Why did God allow the Holocaust?" is more to the point.

 

[Kolibri]

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

That is why we have to take the point of view into consideration. Ultimately it is the architect/engineer that sets the official standard.

 

[Koldo]

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

Subjective =/= illusory

Otherwise that means love doesn't exist. Do you hold this view?

 

[Koldo]

That is why we have to take the point of view into consideration. Ultimately it is the architect/engineer that sets the official standard.

If you are leaving the standard entirely up to the engineer, you are essentially taking away the meaning from omnibenevolence.

 

[Salek Atesh]

Subjective =/= illusory

Otherwise that means love doesn't exist. Do you hold this view?

Yep. "Cartesian" would be the best way to define my core metaphysics. If something like "good" or "evil" exist objectively you'll need to prove it to me. If it does not exist objectively, then there is no real Evil in this world, and the initial question is moot.

I have been explaining ways to make these contradictions fit. So I am not going to talk about it at this point. Suffices to say my methods are not all there is to it. They are just solutions I have come up with. And just a couple of them while at that.

Eh, perhaps I was wrong in trying to use more relatable examples. Off to pure logic:
G(x,y) is a function where "x" is an individual and "y" is something requisite for the individual to view the entire multiverse as "good"
OG is Objective Good
OG = For Every G(x,y), y == true
a is an individual
b is an individual
G(a, z) a views z as good
G(b, !z) b views not-z as good

Design the perfect world where OG applies.

A true, logical contradiction cannot be logically resolved. If logic applies, x and !x never coexist. It is an axiom.

I am not sure why I would need to prove anything regarding perfection. Could you explain why you see this need? I am not sure how it relates to my point.

You've stated an "omnimax" god would make the world perfect. This would presume that perfection is objectively real. If it is merely subjective then perfection is not a physically real standard we can judge anything by, much less the whole multiverse. I presume you mean that a perfect world is one without anything anyone perceives as "bad", but you have not clearly defined your standard of perfection, so I make no assumption that this is the case and again ask you to define what you mean by it.

If we are to say the world is "perfect" or isn't "perfect" we need a definition of "perfect." And in that case, I'll require a proof of the existence of this standard by which we judge what is "perfect". For if it is not objectively real, it is of no use in universal application.

 

[Salek Atesh]

If you are leaving the standard entirely up to the engineer, you are essentially taking away the meaning from omnibenevolence.

Man, I'm still hoping you define this standard and tell me why it magically exists,
At least with theistic objective moralists I can understand it. God made the standard. Easy.
Where does the objective standard come from in your views, though.

 

[Kolibri]

It is interesting that the Bible refers to perfection in degrees. While an imperfect man will 'miss the mark' as if his timing belt is out of sync with the engine - causing wear and an early trip to the junk yard if not fixed - we can be said to be perfect for a specific job or in a specific way, even in our imperfection.

"But besides all these things, clothe yourselves with love, for it is a perfect bond of union." - Col 3:14

"I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one, so that the world may know that you sent me and that you loved them just as you loved me." - John 17:23

"For we all stumble many times. If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man, able to bridle also his whole body." - James 3:2

"Nevertheless, A'sa's heart was complete with (or "was completely devoted to.") Jehovah all his life. (Lit,. "days") - 1 Kings 15:14b

Or as an example of something emphatically not perfect in God's eyes:

"Jehovah examines the righteous one as well as the wicked one; He (or "my soul") hates anyone who loves violence." - Psalms 11:5

 

[Koldo]

Yep. "Cartesian" would be the best way to define my core metaphysics. If something like "good" or "evil" exist objectively you'll need to prove it to me. If it does not exist objectively, then there is no real Evil in this world, and the initial question is moot.

Could you please elaborate how things that don't exist appear to influence things that do exist?
For example, it appears that my thoughts, which are subjective ( similar to 'love' ), are influencing what I am typing right now.
How do you explain this?

Eh, perhaps I was wrong in trying to use more relatable examples. Off to pure logic:
G(x,y) is a function where "x" is an individual and "y" is something requisite for the individual to view the entire multiverse as "good"
OG is Objective Good
OG = For Every G(x,y), y == true
a is an individual
b is an individual
G(a, z) a views z as good
G(b, !z) b views not-z as good

Design the perfect world where OG applies.

A true, logical contradiction cannot be logically resolved. If logic applies, x and !x never coexist. It is an axiom.

It is not required for individuals to view things, that they can't view in the first place, as good.
Remember that my statement was: it is possible for a world to exist where 'people experience good feelings without finding complaints with anything'.

That which is outside the realm of experiences from A is irrelevant to A. Same applies to B.
Sure you can invoke two ( or more ) particular beings that may need to have the knowledge over the multiverse as a whole to find it good, and then say that they have other needs that contradict each other. However, their existence is no more logically necessary than individuals that need 'A = -A' to be true to find the multiverse good.

We are not talking about a god that has to sort beings that currently exist into worlds according to their liking. It is important that you understand this. It is not like I expect god to suddenly make all pieces we currently have to fit nicely into a puzzle. Rather, what was expected was for god to create the pieces so as they would all fit nicely together in the first place.

You've stated an "omnimax" god would make the world perfect. This would presume that perfection is objectively real. If it is merely subjective then perfection is not a physically real standard we can judge anything by, much less the whole multiverse. I presume you mean that a perfect world is one without anything anyone perceives as "bad", but you have not clearly defined your standard of perfection, so I make no assumption that this is the case and again ask you to define what you mean by it.

If we are to say the world is "perfect" or isn't "perfect" we need a definition of "perfect." And in that case, I'll require a proof of the existence of this standard by which we judge what is "perfect". For if it is not objectively real, it is of no use in universal application.

Bad ( or rather evil ) only exists subjectively.
Therefore, if bad ceases to exists subjectively it no longer exists.
A perfect world is, by definition, a world where bad doesn't exist.

Now, certainly, the 'perfect' part is an extra step that is completely unnecessary to the problem of evil itself. Whether I call it 'perfect' or 'logoshogus' is irrelevant.

 

[Koldo]

Man, I'm still hoping you define this standard and tell me why it magically exists,
At least with theistic objective moralists I can understand it. God made the standard. Easy.
Where does the objective standard come from in your views, though.

Erm...what about the Euthyphro Dilemma? How do you solve it, out of curiosity?
And I am not an objective moralist, I am mostly a relativist leaning towards naturalistic explanations for the beginning of morality.

 

[Salek Atesh]

Could you please elaborate how things that don't exist appear to influence things that do exist?
For example, it appears that my thoughts, which are subjective ( similar to 'love' ), are influencing what I am typing right now.
How do you explain this?

Do... do you know what "Cartesian" means in this context?? Because if I was going to get really Cartesian I'd assert that with no solid proof of the existence of the words you are typing, what "influence" are you talking about??

But, eh. I'd rather not go Full Des Cartes at the moment if it's all the same to you. It's not yet relevant to the discourse.

Bad ( or rather evil ) only exists subjectively.
Therefore, if bad ceases to exists subjectively it no longer exists.
A perfect world is, by definition, a world where bad doesn't exist.

Now, certainly, the 'perfect' part is an extra step that is completely unnecessary to the problem of evil itself. Whether I call it 'perfect' or 'logoshogus' is irrelevant.

But subjectivity is just mental constructs. Your subjective notion of "good and bad" does not physically exist in the world outside of your own imagination. And, additionally, it is defined by your imagination. How can you ask for a world that doesn't possess something that exists only in your mind?? This is what I primarily don't get about the "problem of evil" question. Subjective dichotomies like "good and evil" are imaginary, and you are essentially asking for a world wherein a specific imaginary concept does not exist. Evil does not exist in this world, and if you say it does, I'd like some proof of your objectively existing morality.

Erm...what about the Euthyphro Dilemma? How do you solve it, out of curiosity?

I don't. I'm not a theistic objective moralist, so I don't have absolute defenses of their beliefs. Why would I?? But their position I can least understand. It has holes if you look closely, but I can see how someone can understand it.

People who tout the "problem of evil" question I do not understand, thus my investing time in trying to understand it. Most people who posit the "problem of evil" would, when questioned (like yourself) claim to be moral subjectivists. But subjective morality is correct, then there is no real Evil in the world. And if you posit otherwise, I'd like some proof of this supposedly existing objective Evil.

And I am not an objective moralist, I am mostly a relativist leaning towards naturalistic explanations for the beginning of morality.

I'm... not sure this is the case?? You seem to think that eliminating all subjective evil is some sort of Objective Good. Otherwise you wouldn't say that this is "benevolent" (or, at least, you wouldn't say it was requisite for benevolence). A small objective morality, but you've yet to show that the elimination of all subjective bads is an objective good.

If it is not an objective good, then why do you insist on the elimination of all subjective bads??

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I read a quote and comment by Anne Wilson Schaef in her book Native Wisdom for White Minds and, I summaize, she says God is everything and everywhere. Some cultures don't even have a term for God because God is life itself.

That being said, God doesn't "allow" evil as if he is a guy pulling the shots. Evil, how we define it since its not evil until we put a definition to our actions as such, is part of life. The actions we make have good and bad consequences and without that fluctuation between cause and affect, there is no life. So evil has to exist, it isn't "allowed" it just does.

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

 

[Koldo]

But subjectivity is just mental constructs. Your subjective notion of "good and bad" does not physically exist in the world outside of your own imagination. And, additionally, it is defined by your imagination. How can you ask for a world that doesn't possess something that exists only in your mind?? This is what I primarily don't get about the "problem of evil" question. Subjective dichotomies like "good and evil" are imaginary, and you are essentially asking for a world wherein a specific imaginary concept does not exist. Evil does not exist in this world, and if you say it does, I'd like some proof of your objectively existing morality.

One way is to remove anything, that objectively exists, that I could/would define as evil, and some of my replies to you have been focused on this. On this sense, evil is no more subjective than houses or cars.

I don't. I'm not a theistic objective moralist, so I don't have absolute defenses of their beliefs. Why would I?? But their position I can least understand. It has holes if you look closely, but I can see how someone can understand it.

Tough luck for me then. I can't make sense of their position regarding morality as much as I try.

People who tout the "problem of evil" question I do not understand, thus my investing time in trying to understand it. Most people who posit the "problem of evil" would, when questioned (like yourself) claim to be moral subjectivists. But subjective morality is correct, then there is no real Evil in the world. And if you posit otherwise, I'd like some proof of this supposedly existing objective Evil.

But, as you might have noticed, I don't posit that subjective things lack existence. Therefore, there is both real evil and subjective morality.
I am genuinely curious why you think less of the subjective, since these are the things which we can ascertain the existence. We can't claim about the existence of objective things with the same degree of certainty.

I'm... not sure this is the case?? You seem to think that eliminating all subjective evil is some sort of Objective Good. Otherwise you wouldn't say that this is "benevolent" (or, at least, you wouldn't say it was requisite for benevolence). A small objective morality, but you've yet to show that the elimination of all subjective bads is an objective good.

If it is not an objective good, then why do you insist on the elimination of all subjective bads??

If you eliminate all subjective evil then the sentence 'Evil exists.' is no longer true, and therefore the problem of evil is solved. That's why.

 

[Koldo]

I read a quote and comment by Anne Wilson Schaef in her book Native Wisdom for White Minds and, I summaize, she says God is everything and everywhere. Some cultures don't even have a term for God because God is life itself.

That being said, God doesn't "allow" evil as if he is a guy pulling the shots. Evil, how we define it since its not evil until we put a definition to our actions as such, is part of life. The actions we make have good and bad consequences and without that fluctuation between cause and affect, there is no life. So evil has to exist, it isn't "allowed" it just does.

By saying that god is everything, do you mean it as in pantheism or as in panentheism?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The Somanian she quoted from, I think he meant that the spirit of the Creator is the very life that keeps them alive.. type of thing. She does believe in a Creator, so its not pantheism...just seeing the Creator as being life itself rather than creating life.

By saying that god is everything, do you mean it as in pantheism or as in panentheism?

 

[Koldo]

The Somanian she quoted from, I think he meant that the spirit of the Creator is the very life that keeps them alive.. type of thing. She does believe in a Creator, so its not pantheism...just seeing the Creator as being life itself rather than creating life.

Ok.

Question 1: Do you believe it is not possible to experience evil before you get to know the word and its definition?

Question 2: Do you believe actions must have good and bad consequences? If yes, why?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Question 1: Do you believe it is not possible to experience evil before you get to know the word and its definition?

--I hate to say this, it depends. If evil can exist without anyone needing to define it or do something cruel so it can exist, then yes. Any person who hasn't heard the word evil can be influenced or experience evil.

On the other hand, if evil does not exist separate than how we label it, no. Since we define what is evil and what is not. (I guess this last sentence is my final answer)--

Question 2: Do you believe actions must have good and bad consequences? If yes, why?[/QUOTE]

Yes. I believe they do have good and bad consequences because each action say I throw a ball has a consequence it hits a tree or smacks someone on the head and the result, a broken limb or a bruised noggin'. Its the law of nature, cause and affect completely separate from our defining them as evil and not evil.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Subjective =/= illusory

Yes, that's the point I was trying to make.

 

[hayman]

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

It has to allow evil and it need to watch it happen, even though it already knows when and how evil will happen. How else would it know who to send to hell?

 

[Koldo]

--I hate to say this, it depends. If evil can exist without anyone needing to define it or do something cruel so it can exist, then yes. Any person who hasn't heard the word evil can be influenced or experience evil.

On the other hand, if evil does not exist separate than how we label it, no. Since we define what is evil and what is not. (I guess this last sentence is my final answer)--

Do you recognize things as evil or do you determine things as evil?

Yes. I believe they do have good and bad consequences because each action say I throw a ball has a consequence it hits a tree or smacks someone on the head and the result, a broken limb or a bruised noggin'. Its the law of nature, cause and affect completely separate from our defining them as evil and not evil.

Why do you believe actions must have bad consequences?
For instance, why couldn't a ball always change its trajectory if it were to hit someone?