Why does God allow evil?

[Gambit]

Simple, There is no God. Things happen. as Oldbadger said "All that exists in the Universe is just 'natural', and 'natural' does as 'natural' needs to do." If a merchant makes a 200% profit, then it is good for him but bad for the buyer.

Just curious. How do you define "Brahman?" (The reason I am asking is because you identify yourself both as an advaitist Hindu and as an atheist.)

 

[Rick O'Shez]

God allows evil because that is the price of free will, and because humans have brought evil and suffering onto themselves by sinning.

So God gave man free-will and the capacity to do evil and create great suffering. Why would a loving God set it up like that?
Why not make man with just the capacity for good?

 

[LuisDantas]

What exactly is the contradiction?

God is supremely powerful, has no limitations, and is supremely good... yet somehow he needs to accept or perhaps create evil outright because, we are told by Aquinas, there is no other way to achieve higher levels of good.

Either God has no limitations, or he is limited in what he can achieve without resorting to accepting evil. I don't see how both statements could hold true at the same time.

 

[Ouroboros]

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

The ultimate good is God himself.

Brought together, it means that God allows evil to happen in order to bring God about. To God, it's all about God. Good or evil to us is of less importance, since the greater good is God himself.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Brought together, it means that God allows evil to happen in order to bring God about. To God, it's all about God. Good or evil to us is of less importance, since the greater good is God himself.

So God allows evil to bring God about?

 

[Ouroboros]

So God allows evil to bring God about?

That would be the conclusion from the answers in this thread.

God supposedly allows evil for the greater good, and supposedly God is the greater good. That means God is allowing evil to bring himself about.

 

[Glaurung]

Just curious. Do you reject evolution?

I accept the reality of evolution. Genesis is understood to contain the truths about God as the source of all existence and our relationship with him and the world. The fall of man was an event that fundamentally changed the world and humanity to what we know today, but I would not maintain that this event was the literal eating a magical piece of fruit. It's a metaphor

 

[Glaurung]

Either God has no limitations, or he is limited in what he can achieve without resorting to accepting evil. I don't see how both statements could hold true at the same time.

The physical life we live now is a short dream compared the eternity that awaits us. The goal of this life is to decide and prepare for that eternity, which means God has to allow us the meaningful ability to make choices. It's not that he couldn't create a perfect world and beings incapable of evil, it's that he chose not to because this world here with its current inhabitants is better in the long run. God's bigger picture is bigger than yours. You are an insect questioning a mountain.

Of course you can pretend that its all so incoherent. But that's because you've already determined and are hell bent that the Christian wordview is already so at all cost.

 

[LuisDantas]

The physical life we live now is a short dream compared the eternity that awaits us.

Even taking that for granted, I still fail to see what difference it would makes to the subject being discussed.

Do you see some connection?

The goal of this life is to decide and prepare for that eternity, which means God has to allow us the meaningful ability to make choices.

Again, even taking for granted that your premises are completely correct (which is a big bet for one to take, particularly seeing how there is next to no evidence whatsoever for it) that is still odd at the very least, if not all-out self-contradictory.

Most interesting of all is the unspoken premise that your wording implies. Somehow God is all-wise, all-powerful and all-good, yet he "has to allow us" the ability to make choices. You are all but saying that God and humanity are actually at cross purposes.

It's not that he couldn't create a perfect world and beings incapable of evil,

Nor did I present such a scenario. Are you however saying that God is unable of teaching his own creation the very wisdom that he expects us to eventually have? Or that he somehow needs us to learn of evil before that becomes possible?

Maybe it is just me, but I am not seeing a whole lot of logic or meaning in there. It is just too capricious and lacking in rhyme or reason.

it's that he chose not to because this world here with its current inhabitants is better in the long run. God's bigger picture is bigger than yours. You are an insect questioning a mountain.

Perhaps.

Seeing how this mountain apparently admits at being jealous and expects this insect to worship it, it really ought to have put more effort at making some sort of sense. Credibility is a good quality for deities to have.

Of course you can pretend that its all so incoherent.

I actually can't pretend, because it is indeed so very incoherent.

But that's because you've already determined and are hell bent that the Christian wordview is already so at all cost.

So, you are set on blaming me for the fragility and lack of logic of your theology?

Then so be it. It is your credibility on the line.

That said, it is quite a flippant attitude to hold. Could it be because you are hardly saying anything that is not deeply speculative and hope to disconfort me into silence?

Best of luck.

 

[Ouroboros]

Evil is a necessary consequence of the moral freedom of created beings.

But evil isn't necessary for moral freedom for un-created beings? God doesn't need it to be moral?

If intelligent beings can choose virtue, they must also have the ability to choose evil, otherwise moral agency becomes meaningless.

Would it include God?

God wants from us legitimate virtue, which inescapably means giving us the moral freedom to sin.

But if "sin" is the same as "evil" and that is the same as absence of good, then it's nothing you choose. It's just something you lack. Sin is nothing but a hole, not a choice. Or do I understand the whole picture wrong here? (most likely I am, so go ahead and correct me)

Natural evil, such as natural disasters, are an unfortunate reality of an imperfect natural world. This state of affairs is a consequence of the fall from grace as described in Genesis. The fall from grace is also the reason for the human propensity towards sin, and the necessity of God's grace in living a moral life.

Sin, grace, moral life, all of it sounds just like mumbo-jumbo words to me. It's so hard to fine-tune the definitions of these words. They are very vague, if you don't mind me saying it.

Asking the same question over and over will get you no where.

The question came back because of your explanation. If God can and wants to, but he doesn't because he can't or doesn't want to, then there's a contradiction. You said earlier "God does not allow evil as a means to bring about the greatest good in of itself ..." Which was confusing. Do you mean that? That free will and moral agency isn't a greater good? Or did you mean something else, and I misunderstood you?

God is the creator, not a micromanaging puppet master. God allows us to our own choices because he has created us with free will. Freedom necessitates the ability to do evil things. However, God has not excepted us from moral culpability. Every soul will give an account before God for its life here on Earth.

If evil is necessary for us to have free will (that's how I read your explanation above), then heaven either has sin (and free will), or it doesn't have free will (no sin). Is there evil in heaven?

You're actually not that far off. Surely, you can see that virtue when it is a true and free choice is superior to 'virtue' that is compelled by the inability for anything but? Thus creating his intelligent creatures with moral agency is a greater good than creating programmed automatons.

One reason I started discussion with you was that you seemed to suggest earlier that there wasn't a "greater good".

Of course, evil has already been utterly conquered by Christ's death and resurrection, but whilst on Earth we must deal with it and strive to overcome it as much as we can. Jesus has provided the means for our justification before God, we have only to accept it and align ourselves with God as much as possible.

Or... good and evil are two sides of the coin that will never end to exist. It's the two opposing forces that both together must co-exist.

 

[Glaurung]

Even taking that for granted, I still fail to see what difference it would makes to the subject being discussed.

Because the question here assumes Christian theology. The world isn't perfect because that's not what it's here for. Ultimately, this place is a testing ground only.

Again, even taking for granted that your premises are completely correct (which is a big bet for one to take, particularly seeing how there is next to no evidence whatsoever for it) that is still odd at the very least, if not all-out self-contradictory.

The question is incoherent if we are not assuming Christianity.

Most interesting of all is the unspoken premise that your wording implies. Somehow God is all-wise, all-powerful and all-good, yet he "has to allow us" the ability to make choices. You are all but saying that God and humanity are actually at cross purposes.

He never had to allow us any freedom, he could have created perfect automatons. But what kind of love can an automaton give? Nonetheless, the human will is distorted and is at odds with God. Left to our own devices, we seek our own happiness and gratification though the material, but that short sighted goal is not what is in our best interests. Aligning ourselves with God is, and that is what we are here to do. You're not here to be comfortable, you're here to determine your eternity.

Seeing how this mountain apparently admits at being jealous and expects this insect to worship it, it really ought to have put more effort at making some sort of sense. Credibility is a good quality for deities to have.

God doesn't need you to worship him, he even gives you to complete freedom to reject him eternally.

Then so be it. It is your credibility on the line.

And I question the credibility of someone who thinks he's smarter than St Aquinas, despite not having done any study of Thomistic philosophy. My credibility with internet atheists is not something I'm too concerned about.

That said, it is quite a flippant attitude to hold. Could it be because you are hardly saying anything that is not deeply speculative and hope to disconfort me into silence?

I'm not trying to prove Christianity to you, it's that this question assumes Christianity and your complaint that it's incoherent is wrong. You can tell yourself that the problem of evil is some knock-down deathblow to theism all you want, I disagree and your assertions that my disagreement can only be a result of incoherent reasoning is just your conceit.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Just curious. How do you define "Brahman?" (The reason I am asking is because you identify yourself both as an advaitist Hindu and as an atheist.)

That again is simple. 'Brahman' is the warp and woof of what exists in the universe. Free dictionary opines 'The underlying structure on which something is built; a base or foundation.' To me it seems to be 'physical energy' (e equals mc squared, heat, light, electricity ..). So that should be Brahman. I do not find any other thing existing in the universe. That is what our books also say. 'Sarva khalu Idam Brahma' (All this here is Brahman), 'Eko sad, Dwiteeyo nasti' (What exists is one, there is no second). Hinduism and the concept of 'dharma' gives me the way to live my life.

 

[Desert Snake]

Have you read the Bible?
What book are you reading to lead you to this question..

 

[Desert Snake]

"Evil" is a creature? It's not a label of the actions of something or the things happening, but just a character/person? That would be kind'a mind-twisting in the other thread where "evil = absence of good". So... absence of good produces a creature... hmm...

This is presuming satan is evil

What book y'all reading?

 

[Glaurung]

But evil isn't necessary for moral freedom for un-created beings? God doesn't need it to be moral?

God is not a being with qualities like you and I. He is his qualities, and he is good. Evil, is simply that which is not in alignment with the good, which is indistinguishable from God. Evil in reality, is the absence of God, and God can never be in absence of himself.

Would it include God?

No because God is not a 'being' in the sense that everything else is. Created beings have qualities, God is his qualities. He is what it means to be good.

But if "sin" is the same as "evil" and that is the same as absence of good, then it's nothing you choose. It's just something you lack. Sin is nothing but a hole, not a choice. Or do I understand the whole picture wrong here? (most likely I am, so go ahead and correct me)

Sin is simply any action that is at odds with the moral standards expected by God, in a sense, by sinning you are rejecting God. The more you align yourself with God, the less you will be inclined towards sin, but since on Earth you will never be completely aligned with God you will always have that tendency towards sin. Aligning yourself with God requires a conscious act of will to faith, and to sin requires a conscious act of rejecting God and his moral precepts. You knew something was wrong, but you did it anyway. Sin is not in of itself, a big list of arbitrary "shalt nots".

Sin, grace, moral life, all of it sounds just like mumbo-jumbo words to me. It's so hard to fine-tune the definitions of these words. They are very vague, if you don't mind me saying it.

I've just defined sin.
Grace in essence is the 'friendship' of God. It's your moral standing before God.
A moral life is a life where one strives to live virtuously, and avoid sin. You won't do it perfectly, but it's the unreachable goal to strive for.

The question came back because of your explanation. If God can and wants to, but he doesn't because he can't or doesn't want to, then there's a contradiction. You said earlier "God does not allow evil as a means to bring about the greatest good in of itself ..." Which was confusing. Do you mean that? That free will and moral agency isn't a greater good? Or did you mean something else, and I misunderstood you?

God's designs cannot be frustrated, the presence of evil (or lack of it) is irrelevant as far as God's chances of success are. (Which of course, is certain). Nonetheless evil exists because he has created a world where his creatures are able to choose to commit evil. God knows this and in his foreknowledge has moved to bring about the greatest good despite and even though whatever evil occurs. God has already won, regardless of whatever evil (or lack of evil) may occur. God will use the freedom of beings to his advantage, but his advantage in of itself is not dependant on their choices.

If evil is necessary for us to have free will (that's how I read your explanation above), then heaven either has sin (and free will), or it doesn't have free will (no sin). Is there evil in heaven?

Nothing that is not in full alignment with God can enter Heaven. Begins maintain their freedom and individuality, but their wills are irrevocably aligned with what is good thus making the possibility for sin non-existent among them. Those in Heaven have already made their choice, as those who are in Hell. They have already been tested. Even the Angels were subjected to this choice, and at some point a number (traditionally held to be a third) rejected God and became the demonic.

One reason I started discussion with you was that you seemed to suggest earlier that there wasn't a "greater good".

God is the greatest good, because he is the source of everything that is good. All we are here to do is align ourselves to him and strive for Heaven. But you are in no way obligated to, that's the point of having free will. And you are perfectly free to reject him for you own will. The consequence for this is Hell, but the misery of Hell is simply the consequence of rejecting your own happiness (which is God) not because God is sadistically tormenting you. (Which is a common misunderstanding)

Or... good and evil are two sides of the coin that will never end to exist. It's the two opposing forces that both together must co-exist.

Christians are not dualists. There is no evil in the presence of God, evil is only the absence of him.

 

[Willamena]

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

No. Because it's pretty.

 

[Gambit]

No. Because it's pretty.

What?

 

[Ouroboros]

This is presuming satan is evil

What book y'all reading?

I'd say Satan is the symbol of individualism, independence, and free thought.

 

[Willamena]

What?

People are drawn to evil because of its shininess, just as they are drawn to good for the same reason. Moths to the proverbial flame.

God allows evil to happen because it's as much a part of us as any other flame we are attracted to.

Just my two cents.

 

[columbus]

Everyone seems to assume that God cares.

People talk about God, creation, humans, and evil as though there was a reason to believe that we are important. I see no reason to believe that God thinks so.

We and creation are not any more important to God than some sawdust and the bacteria crawling around on it in a Chicago landfill are to Frank Lloyd Wright.

Just look around you at the universe.

If anybody is going to care about us we have to do it for ourselves and each other. God won't do it for us.

Tom